Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190909 - Planning Board - AgendaHOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, September 9, 2019 7:00 P.M. Hopkinton Public Library, 13 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA Large Event Room AGENDA NOTE: NEW MEETING LOCATION 1.Administrative Items a.Planning Board Member Appointment discussion b.Zoning Advisory Committee Appointments i.One (1) at-large applicant - Sundar Sivaraman c.Planning Board Representative to Community Preservation Committee Appointment d.Legacy Farms North Bus Stop Issue e.Legacy Farms Road/East Main Street Traffic Light Status f.Discussion of New Sidewalk Survey g.Growth Study Committee Membership and Discussion i.Alternates ii.Ex-officio positions h.Approval of Minutes - July 22, 2019 2.Continued Public Hearings - Whisper Way OSLPD (Whisper Way/Wood Street) - 1) Amendment to Special Permit Concept Plan; 2) Definitive Subdivision Plan - 20th Century Homes Proposed 12-lot single family subdivision - 1) proposed amendment to Special Permit Concept Plan reducing the number of building lots to 12; 2) revised definitive subdivision plan 3.Continued Public Hearings - 76 Main Street - 1) Site Plan Review and 2) Flexible Community Development (FCD) Special Permit - REC Hopkinton LLC Major Project Site Plan Review - Proposed construction of a 3-story mixed use building with commercial and residential uses; Proposed approval of a Special Permit relative to the Flexible Community Development Bylaw, where 2 of the 26 residential units are required to be affordable. REQUEST TO WITHDRAW 4.Local Action Unit Application Discussion and Recommendation to Select Board - Chamberlain-Whalen Subdivision - REC Hopkinton, LLC The Select Board has asked the Planning Board to review and provide feedback regarding the Local Action Unit application to the Department of Housing and Community Development for the affordable units to be provided off-site in order to satisfy the requirement for the Chamberlain-Whalen subdivision. 5.Continued Public Hearing - 97-99 South Street - Minor Site Plan Review - Southfield Properties I, LLC Proposed building and site modifications. HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, September 9, 2019 7:00 P.M. Hopkinton Public Library, 13 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA Large Event Room AGENDA 6.Continued Public Hearing - Maspenock Woods (West Elm Street) - Maspenock Woods Realty Trust Proposed amendments to the Special Permit and approved Site Plan pursuant to the Garden Apartments in Residential Districts Bylaw, to allow demolition and replacement of the existing dwelling at 5 West Elm Street 7.Continued Public Hearings - LNG Line Replacement (Eversource Energy): 1) Stormwater Management Permit, 2) Earth Removal Permit Proposed installation of a natural gas utility pipeline through Hopkinton, replacing the existing pipeline. The subject property is located on Assessors Map R8-38-0, R8-39-0, R9-5-0, R9-6-0, R9-6-A, R9-6-B, R9-6-H, R9-14-0, R9-14-B, R13-8-1, and U7-7-0. 8.New Public Hearing – Cross Street – Scenic Road Permit - Eversource Energy For work in the right of way of Cross Street,a scenic road,approximately 450 ft.north of the intersection with Frankland Road.The proposed work involves the temporary removal of an approximately 5 ft. section of stone wall within the existing pipeline easement. 9.New Public Hearing - 223 Pond Street - Scenic Road Permit - Christine and Andre Navez For work in the right of way of Pond Street,a scenic road,involving the temporary removal of approximately 15 ft.of stone wall to allow access for the installation of new septic tanks at 223 Pond Street. 10.New Public Hearing - Elmwood Farms III - Off Adams Street, Myrtle Avenue, and Fitch Avenue - Amendment to Definitive Subdivision Plan - Abbott Realty Trust The proposed amendment would reconfigure the remaining unbuilt section of the subdivision and reduce the number of lots from 59 to 51. 11.New Public Hearing - 57 Hayden Rowe - Major Site Plan Review - Keefe Chesmore, Chesmore Funeral Home and Cremation Services, Inc. Work proposed is for additions/improvements and associated site work. Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting: ●Legacy Farms North Bus Stop Issue ●Lumber Street/West Main Street improvements ●Legacy Farms North (Section formerly known as Rafferty Road) - Discussion about disrepair ●Peloquin Estates - No-cut easements ●Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness and Climate Change discussion ●Affordable housing/payments-in-lieu/off-site units discussion ●Future agenda items, correspondence Town of Hopkinton  Department of Land Use, Planning and Permitting  18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748  (508) 497-9745      DATE:  September 5, 2019     TO:  Planning Board     FROM: John Gelcich, Principal Planner     RE: Items on Planning Board Agenda, September 9, 2019    Contents:  1.Administrative Items  1.1.Planning Board Member Appointment Discussion  1.2.Zoning Advisory Committee Appointments  1.2.1.Sundar Sivaraman  1.3.Planning Board Rep to Community Preservation Committee (CPC)         appointment  1.4.Legacy Farms North Bus Stop Issue  1.5.Legacy Farms North/East Main Street Traffic Light Status  1.6.Discussion of New Sidewalk Survey  1.7.Growth Study Committee  1.7.1.Alternates  1.7.2.Ex-officio members  1.8.Approval of Minutes - July 22, 2019  2.Whisper Way OSLPD (Whisper Way/Wood Street)-1)Amendment to Special Permit             Concept Plan; 2) Definitive Subdivision Plan - 20th Century Homes  3.76 Main Street -1)Site Plan Review and 2)Flexible Community Development (FCD)               Special Permit - REC Hopkinton LLC  4.Local Action Unit Application Discussion and Recommendation to Select Board -            Chamberlain-Whalen Subdivision - REC Hopkinton LLC  5.97-99 South Street - Minor Site Plan Review - Southfield Properties I, LLC  6.Maspenock Woods (West Elm Street) - Maspenock Woods Realty Trust  7.LNG Line Replacement -1)Stormwater Management Permit and 2)Earth Removal             Permit - Eversource Energy  8.Cross Street - Scenic Road Permit - Eversource Energy  9.223 Pond Street - Scenic Road Permit - Christine and Andre Navez  1 10.Elmwood Farms III -Off Adams Street,Myrtle Avenue,and Fitch Avenue -              Amendment to Definitive Subdivision Plan - Abbott Realty Trust  11.57 Hayden Rowe -Major Site Plan Review -Chesmore Funeral Home and Cremation               Services, Inc.   12.Zoning Board of Appeals Notices  13.Next Meetings    1.0 Administrative Items  1.1.Planning Board Member Appointment Discussion  The following applicants have asked to be considered for the vacant Planning             Board seat (as of 9/5/19):  ●Jane Moran  ●Mary Arnaut  ●Mike McNamara  ●Smriti Choudhury    These applications are attached as part of this memo.It should be noted that               we have been advised by the Town Clerk that there is no effective deadline for                this application process,therefore someone could request to be considered at            the meeting on September 10th.     1.2.Zoning Advisory Committee Appointments  Sundar Sivaraman has submitted an application to be considered for the open             At-large seat on the Zoning Advisory Committee.His application is attached as             part of this memo.     1.3.Planning Board Rep to Community Preservation Committee (CPC)         appointment  Currently,Gary Trendel is serving as the Planning Board representative to the             Community Preservation Committee (CPC).However,his term (1 year)has           ended and a new representative (or Gary again) needs to be reappointed.     1.4.Legacy Farms North Bus Stop Issue  An on-site meeting is to be held on September 5 to discuss options to address                the safety issue at the bus stop.An update to the Board will be presented at the                  Planning Board meeting.      A letter from Kathleen Towner was submitted to the Planning Board to be              included as part of the record for this issue. This letter is attached to this memo.     1.5.Legacy Farms North/East Main Street Traffic Light Status  Several members of the public have reached out about the traffic light status at               the intersection of Legacy Farms North/South and East Main Street.Baystone            (Roy MacDowell)has submitted 75%drawings to the Principal Planner,BETA,            and John Westerling (DPW).The next step is to review the documents internally              and provide feedback in order to progress to 100% drawings.   2   1.6.Discussion of New Sidewalk Survey  John Westerling,DPW Director said that he has had a couple of people ask about                new sidewalk construction for next year's budget.The two previous attempts at             funding for new sidewalks have not been successful.He said some have claimed              that the results of the most recent Planning Board survey no longer meet the               needs of the community.He is asking whether the Planning Board has             considered conducting another survey and bringing forward a funding request           for new sidewalks.     May push to next meeting.     1.7.Growth Study Committee  A determination was made that the alternate positions for the Growth Study             Committee were not properly advertised before appointments were made.          Additionally,the role of the Alternates was not made clear,with respect to when               the position would participate in votes.Discussion is also proposed to determine             whether ex-officio positions should be established.     1.8.Approval of Minutes - July 22, 2019    2.0 Whisper Way OSLPD (Whisper Way/Wood Street)-1)Amendment to Special            Permit Concept Plan; 2) Definitive Subdivision Plan - 20th Century Homes  2.1.Background  20th Century Homes has requested that the application before the Board be             withdrawn and replaced with a similar application showing some minor revisions            to the layout of the site.According to the Applicant,the revisions of note               include:  ●Changing the layout of the parcels so that all but two lots (Lots 5 and 6)                 meet the lot frontage depth; and  ●Removal of the spur on Lot 12 to access the adjacent lot through the               open space.     The reason for the withdrawal and resubmission is to allow for Planning Board              members who have been disqualified from voting due to missing meetings or             being seated on the Board after deliberations were undertaken for the project to              participate and become eligible to vote.We have spoken to Town Counsel about              this and have been advised that this procedure is allowed.The “new”application              has been duly noticed and the Applicant will need to give a short presentation to                bring all Board members up to speed on the current proposal.     2.1.1.Regulatory Review  §210-109 Permitted Uses  The proposed development proposes detached single-family dwellings,        which are a permitted use under this section.         3 §210-110 Minimum Requirements  The proposed tract is 31.2 acres and therefore meets the minimum            required tract size (10 acres).    The density of development is determined through a yield plan prepared            by the Applicant,which is discussed above,showing 12 lots.Additionally,            a formula can be used to determine lots.The Applicant has performed             this calculation as shown on the sheet entitled “Open Space Plan”of the              Revised Definitive Plan and Amended Concept Plan package.Using the           denominator for the Agricultural District (the more restrictive number of           the two), the Applicant has determined that 19 lots may be constructed.     §210-111 Intensity Regulations  Lot frontage depth may be waived by the Planning Board.The Applicant             has requested a waiver from this requirement.BETA has previously           recommended that the Applicant identify which lots will need this waiver.     The OSLPD allows for dead-end streets within the district,with a            maximum road length of 1,000 feet.     Common driveways are permitted within the OSLPD.Please refer to           BETA’s review letter for comments regarding the proposed common          driveways.     §210-112 Development Standards  A.Concept plan standards.Prior to the issuance of a special permit            for an open space and landscape preservation development,the          applicant shall submit the information necessary to demonstrate         that the following standards have been met:  (1)The development will not cause unreasonable traffic        congestion or unsafe conditions both within and outside of the           development.  (2)The development will provide for and maintain convenient and          safe emergency vehicle access to all buildings and structures at           all times.  (3)The site design shall preserve and,where possible,enhance          the historic and natural features of the property,including          scenic views,by adapting the location and placement of          structures and ways to the existing topography in order to           minimize the amount of soil removal,tree cutting and general           disturbance to the landscape and surrounding properties.  (4)The site design shall identify and ensure preservation of          significant and special historic and natural features,and use of           §210-117.2,Lots with Historic Structures,shall be considered          as a mechanism to do so, where appropriate.     B.Definitive plan standards.Prior to the approval of a definitive plan            based upon the open space and landscape preservation concept          4 plan,the applicant shall submit the information necessary to          demonstrate that the following standards have been met.These          standards are in addition to the requirements of the Hopkinton           Subdivision Rules and Regulations and are in no way intended to            replace any portion of those regulations.  (1)The nature of the soils and subsoils shall be suited for the             intended purposes based upon the Soil Conservation        Guidelines.This determination shall focus upon but shall not          be limited to the locations,design and construction of          roadways,buildings and surface water drainage systems.Soil         borings or test pits may be made to provide information on            soil texture,color,percolation rates and depth to the          groundwater table at its maximum elevation.  (2)Anticipated storm water runoff from the site shall not exceed           peak runoff from the site prior to development.The applicant           shall submit formal drainage calculations by a registered         professional engineer for this purpose.  (3)Proper soil erosion and sedimentation control measures shall         be employed to prevent sedimentation and siltation of existing          surface water bodies and wetlands.In areas where the land           slopes downward toward any surface water body or         freshwater wetland,proposed filling,cutting,clearing or        grading shall be minimized and all such development activities          shall be carried out in such a way as to retain the natural              vegetation and topography wherever possible.The Planning        Board may require that an erosion and sedimentation control          plan be submitted if significant erosion is anticipated in slope           areas.    §210-113 Open Space Use and Design Standards  The minimum required amount of open spaces for an OSLPD           development is 50%of the land area.The Applicant proposes ±20.99            acres of open space on a tract of ±40.18 acres,resulting in an open space                ratio of 52.23%, meeting the minimum required size.     Additional standards are below:  The common open space shall be designed and maintained in           accordance with the following standards:  (1)Areas to remain as naturally existing woods,fields,meadows and           wetlands shall be maintained and may be improved in accordance           with good conservation practices.  (2)Common open space shall be planned as large,contiguous units           wherever possible.Strips of narrow parcels of common open          space shall be permitted only when necessary for access or as            vegetated buffers along the site's perimeter.  (3)Common open space may be in more than one parcel,provided            that the size,shape and location of such parcels are suitable for             the designated uses.  5 (4)No more than 20%of the common open space shall be covered by              man-made impervious surfaces.  (5)Common open space may be used for active and passive           recreation,conservation,forestry,agriculture,natural buffers,       structures necessary for approved uses,utilities and other         facilities necessary for the convenience and enjoyment of the          residents, subject to approval by the Planning Board.  (6)If detention and/or retention ponds are necessary for the          construction of the improvements shown on the subdivision plan,          such detention and/or retention ponds shall not be located within           the common open space shown on such plan.The Planning Board            may waive this requirement if the Board finds that the integrity            and significance of the open space and the benefit of the open             space to the Town are not compromised,and that the open space             created conforms with the intent and purpose of this article.In no             case,however,shall permanent clearing for drainage        improvements or utilities,including detention and/or retention        ponds, exceed 5% of any common open space parcel.    Buffer areas.  (1)There shall be a buffer at the perimeter of the site consisting of              trees,shrubs,vegetation and topographic features sufficient to         separate and/or screen the development from abutting        properties.This buffer shall be no less than 100 feet in width.The             buffer shall be considered common open space.Upon a finding by            the Planning Board that a buffer of lesser width would be            sufficient to screen and/or separate the development from         adjacent property,or would allow a historic structure to be           preserved the buffer may be reduced.If,however,the perimeter           of the site abuts a Business (B),Downtown Business (BD),Rural            Business (BR)or Industrial A (IA)or Industrial B (IB)zoning district,             the Planning Board may require the buffer area abutting a B,BR,             IA or IB District to be greater than 100 feet in order to ensure               adequate separation and/or screening from the abutting        commercial zoning districts.   (2)The Board may require no-cut easements,conservation        restrictions or the like where the buffer requirement has been           reduced.These easements and restrictions shall be on private          property,shall not be considered a buffer and shall not be            included in common open space calculations.  (3)Retention and/or detention ponds may be permitted in the buffer           area upon approval of the Planning Board.Structures shall not be            permitted in the buffer area.  (4)Buffer areas shall remain substantially in their current natural          state;provided,however,that such areas may include new trails           and trailhead parking areas as may be approved by the Planning            Board.     6 2.2.Relevant Materials for this Meeting  ●Whisper Way OSLPD Plans, dated 5/24/19, revised 9/3/19   ○Too large to email, linked here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dG5eavZd7EVYMthLLzxmi98CPnw2F OL_/view?usp=sharing   ●Email from BETA, dated 9/3/19  ●Lot Shape Factor Plan, dated 8/1/19  ●Stormwater Report, dated 9/3/19  ●Long-term Operations and Maintenance Plan, dated 8/30/19  ●DRAFT Special Permit Decision, dated 9/3/19    2.3.Comments Received  Principal Planner Comments:  The Applicant,BETA,and I have gone back and forth with several of the               aforementioned documents in the time between the last meeting of the            Planning Board on this application and the present time.At this time,it is               believed that all issues brought up by BETA have been addressed by the              Applicant in the plans,with the exception of the approval of driveway layout by               the Fire Department,which is included as a condition of approval in the draft               decision.     The Planning Board previously approved all requested waivers for the project.     2.4.Public Hearing Outline   1.Project introduction and review - Applicant  2.Staff Report  3.Consultant Review  4.Planning Board members and Public – Add to Detailed Discussion items  5.Detailed Discussion, with Public Comment for each topic  5.1.Vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow;truck traffic flow;         emergency vehicle access   5.2.Intended uses   5.3.Stormwater management  5.4.Site lighting   5.5.Utilities; Water/Sewer use  5.6.Parking lot layout;dumpster location;snow storage/snow        removal  5.7.Noise; HVAC/exhaust systems; Screening of HVAC (if applicable)  5.8.Crosswalk location; Sidewalks  5.9.Building design and landscaping  5.10.Signage  5.11.Solar Panels/alternative energy  5.12.Impacts on:1)schools;2)other municipal services;3)value of            neighboring residential properties  5.13.Town Department and Board/Committee Comments not       covered above  6.Additional or New Comments and Information  7.Standards/Findings  7 7.1.Discuss Special Permit findings   7.2.Discuss findings and standards for other approvals   8.Discuss/vote on waivers  9.Discuss conditions of approval   10.Final public comment  11.Vote to close public hearing  12.Vote on Special Permit and Definitive Subdivision Plan    2.5.Decision Criteria  2.5.1.OSLPD Special Permit  §210-115.A.(3) Special permit criteria.   The special permit shall be granted only if the Planning Board finds each              of the following:  (a)The development meets the purpose of an open space and           landscape preservation development as described in §210-106.         Principal Planner Comment: This is understood to be true.  (b)The development standards contained in §210-112A(1)through         (4)have been met.​Principal Planner Comment:This is          understood to be true.  (c)The common open space is designed in accordance with the           standards set forth in §210-113B.​Principal Planner Comment:          This is understood to be true.  (d)The common open space is designed in accordance with the           standards set forth in §210-113C.​Principal Planner Comment:          This is understood to be true.  (e)The parcel could be developed as a conventional subdivision          under existing local,state and federal land use regulations.          Principal Planner Comment: This is understood to be true.  (f)The open space and landscape preservation development        provides for efficient use and delivery of municipal and other           services and infrastructure.​Principal Planner Comment:This is         understood to be true.    2.5.2.Definitive Subdivision Plan  §210-115.B.(1) Definitive Plan  If the open space and landscape preservation development special          permit is granted,the applicant shall submit a plan in conformity with the              requirements and procedures for definitive plan submission and review          under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations of the Planning Board.In            accordance with MGL c.41,§81R,the applicant may request a waiver              from the Subdivision Rules and Regulations if such action is in the public              interest and consistent with the intent and purposes of this article,the             Subdivision Control Law,and the special permit.The Planning Board then            shall review the aspects of the open space and landscape preservation            development with regard to its compliance to the Subdivision Control           Law,and hold a public hearing as required by MGL c.41,§81T.The                overall concept shall only be reconsidered if there is substantial variation            between the definitive plan and the concept plan.A substantial variation            8 shall be defined as an increase in the number of lots,a decrease in the                open space acreage,a change in the layout which causes dwelling units             or roadways to be placed closer to a dwelling unit within 500 feet of the                project and/or a change in the development pattern which adversely           affects natural landscape features and open space.If the Planning Board            finds that a substantial variation exists,it must hold a public hearing on              the modifications of the concept plan.    2.6.Board Actions  The Planning Board’s actions for the two applications are as follows:    ●For Amendment to OSLPD Special Permit -Decision due 90 days after the              close of the public hearing.A ⅔vote is required to approve the Special               Permit amendment. All members are eligible to vote.    ●For Definitive Subdivision Plan -Decision due 10/20/19.A majority vote            of the Board is required for approval. All members are eligible to vote.     The Applicant has requested an amendment to the previously-issued OSLPD           Special Permit,which,given the reduction of lots currently proposed,will need to              be reviewed and decided prior to a decision on the revised definitive subdivision              plan,as the subdivision plan could not be executed without the amendment to              the Special Permit.As such,it is recommended that the Board proceed with the               Special Permit amendment prior to the subdivision plan.     2.7.Other  2.7.1.Requested Waivers  All requested waivers for this proposal were approved by the Planning            Board at the 8/12/19 meeting.     2.7.2.Proposed Conditions  All proposed conditions should be captured in the draft decision,           including those that were recently recommended by BETA.     3.0 76 Main Street -1)Site Plan Review and 2)Flexible Community Development (FCD)               Special Permit - REC Hopkinton LLC    The Applicant has requested that this application be withdrawn.An email with this              request is attached as part of this memo.The Planning Board should vote whether to                allow the withdrawal.    4.0 Local Action Unit Application Discussion and Recommendation to Select Board -            Chamberlain-Whalen Subdivision - REC Hopkinton LLC    The Applicant has withdrawn this application until the time when the units have been               identified. No action is required on the part of the Planning Board.       9       5.0 97-99 South Street - Minor Site Plan Review - Southfield Properties I, LLC    5.1.Background   The facility was originally permitted and constructed more than thirty-five (35)            years ago.The facility is a one story flex office building with associated parking               areas,access driveway and pedestrian walkways.The facility is serviced by            municipal water and municipal sanitary sewer.    The proposed changes to the site, as described by the Applicant include:    Building changes:  ●Internal changes have resulted in a complete "gutting out"of the building             interior.Internal office spaces,labs and clean rooms,conference rooms           and meeting rooms and rest rooms are proposed for the facility  ●Exterior changes proposed include modernizing and enlarging two         existing entry ways along the southerly side of the facility;replacement of             the roofing membrane;replacement of rooftop mechanical equipment;         replacement of all exterior framing and window glass;addition of metallic            panels above the window line on three sides of the facility.    Site changes:  ●Changes to the new westerly entrance have resulted in the removal of             three parking spaces.  ●A new configuration for the pedestrian walkway near the revised           entrances has been developed.  ●The existing water service will be extended to allow for the placement of a               fire hydrant to increase fire fighting capabilities at the facility.  ●Existing parking light poles and fixtures will be replaced with shorter light             poles and lighting fixtures mandated by Town of Hopkinton Planning           Board requirements.The lighting fixtures will be designed to direct site            lighting to appropriate locations and eliminate light spillage beyond site           boundaries.  ●Additional landscape areas and materials will be added to the project site             at locations near the front entrance,existing traffic islands and other            areas around the facility.The existing traffic islands will be reviewed and             any damaged curbing will be repaired or replaced as needed.The well fed              irrigation system will be extended to include the traffic islands and areas             at the front of the building to ensure proper growth of existing and              proposed landscape materials.  ●The existing parking lot and driveway surfaces will be scarified,milled or             excavated and replaced to facilitate the placement of a new parking lot             surface.Parking space striping,crosswalk striping and directional striping          will be added to the new surface to create a similar traffic and parking               pattern to what currently exists at the facility.Parking lot and driveway             10 grades will be recreated to ensure storm water flows reach facilities in a              manner that replicates the current condition.      5.2.Regulatory Review  The proposed work appears (and the Director of Municipal Inspections has            agreed)to be categorized as a minor Site Plan Review project.The work does               not involve an increase of gross floor area (GFA)of more than 5,000 square feet,                nor does it involve the construction,enlargement,or alteration of a parking area              containing five or more parking spaces.     5.3.Relevant Materials for this Meeting  ●Site Plan Application Package, dated 7/19/19  ●Lighting Details, dated 8/13/19  ●Lighting Plan, dated 8/13/19  ●Construction Plans, dated 9/3/19  ○Too large to email, linked here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/15X3UyQVb1WfYKUGxys2VNdxVHJ4Os DxT/view?usp=sharing   ●Letter from Joe Marquedant regarding changes based on Conservation          Commission Review, dated 9/3/19  ●Snow Storage plan, dated 9/3/19  ●Inspection and Maintenance Plan, dated 9/3/19  ●Email from Hopkinton DPW, dated 7/26/19  ●Recommendation from the Design Review Board, dated 8/22/19    5.4.Comments Received  The DRB made the following comments:  ●The Board acknowledged the Applicant’s statement that the Applicant will  need to reappear before the Design Review Board for the on-site signs  when appropriate;    ●The Applicant confirmed that snow stakes would be utilized in order to  better preserve the health of the trees with regard to snow plowing.   5.5.Decision Criteria   Conformance with Site Plan standards.     5.6.Public Hearing Outline  None.    5.7.Board Actions  The Board’s votes on the submitted materials will consist of:    ●For the Site Plan Amendment -Decision is due 90 days after the close of                the public hearing and a simple majority vote is required for approval.All              members are eligible to vote.   11   5.8.Other  None.       6.0 Maspenock Woods -Proposed amendments to Special Permit and Site Plan            Approval for demolition and replacement of existing dwelling unit at 5 West Elm              Street     6.1.Background  The Applicant has requested that the Planning Board continue this hearing.     The application described below was submitted to the Board on October 31,             2018 (modified March 7,2019 to include a request to amend the Special Permit),               April 10,2019,and May 14,2019.The minor site plan modifications to units 21,                22, 23, and 24 was approved by the Planning Board previously.     ●Public hearing for proposed amendments to Special Permit and Site Plan            Approval -Garden Apartments in Residential Districts (Article XIII).The           applicant proposes to modify the previously granted waiver for house           location for the dwelling unit at 5 West Elm Street,to be located              approximately 50 feet from West Elm Street and 27.2 feet from the             northern property line.The applicant proposes to demolish the existing           dwelling unit and rebuild a single dwelling unit in its place,in a different               location on the site.   The previous decision (dated December 20,2005)approved a waiver of the             100-foot setback for buildings (allowed for reduction to 75 feet).A second             waiver,for the setback requirements for 5 West Elm Street specifically,was             granted to allow for retention of the existing house in its present location.The               setback for the side yard was determined to be 48 feet.     6.2.Regulatory Review  Setback Requirements of Garden Apartments in Residential District         (“GARD”) (§210-74.B.(7)) (emphasis added):  All buildings must be located a minimum of 100 feet from any side or rear lot line                  and 100 feet from any established street layout or,where applicable,any defined              street line of a public road,which street setback area shall be undeveloped and/or               landscaped.​Upon a finding by the Planning Board that a setback of lesser width               would be sufficient to screen and/or separate the development from adjacent            property,or would allow a historic structure to be preserved,the setback may              be reduced.​The Board may require no-cut easements,conservation restrictions,           historic preservation restrictions or the like where the setback has been reduced.             Buildings shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from interior roadways and              driveways which are not considered streets or public roads.    The underlying zoning of the site is the Residential B (RB)district.The              requirements of the GARD supersede the requirements of the RB,however,this             12 dimensional information is provided for informational purposes.The setback          requirements of this district are detailed below:    Minimum setback from the street line:50 feet  Minimum side yard width:25 feet  Minimum rear yard width: 20 feet     6.3.Relevant Materials for this Meeting  ●No new information has been submitted    6.4.Comments Received  Board of Health Comments:  The Board of Health submitted a letter dated June 10,2019 stating the following               comments:    Provided that the next changes in area do not reduce and/or negatively impact any               previously approved regulatory offsets, the Department has no comment.     The Department looks forward to a review of the site development plans for 5 West                Elm Street.     6.5.Public Hearing Outline  1.Project introduction and review - Applicant  2.Staff Report  3.Consultant Review  4.Planning Board members and Public – Add to Detailed Discussion items  5.Detailed Discussion, with Public Comment for each topic  5.1.Vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow; truck traffic flow;  emergency vehicle access   5.2.Intended uses   5.3.Stormwater management  5.4.Site lighting   5.5.Utilities; Water/Sewer use  5.6.Parking lot layout; dumpster location; snow storage/snow  removal  5.7.Noise; HVAC/exhaust systems; Screening of HVAC (if  applicable)  5.8.Crosswalk location; Sidewalks  5.9.Building design and landscaping  5.10.Historic Structures (if applicable)  5.11.Signage  5.12.Solar Panels/alternative energy  5.13.Affordable Housing Units (if applicable)  5.14.Impacts on: 1) schools; 2) other municipal services; 3) value of  neighboring residential properties  13 5.15.Town Department and Board/Committee Comments not  covered above  6.Additional or New Comments and Information  7.Standards/Findings  7.1.Discuss Site Plan standards and plan revisions to be made (if  applicable)  7.2.Discuss Special Permit findings (if applicable)  7.3.Discuss findings and standards for other approvals (if  applicable)  8.Discuss/Vote on waivers (if applicable)  9.Discuss conditions of approval   10.Final public comment  11.Vote to close public hearing  12.Vote on Permits being requested  6.6.Decision Criteria  Special Permit Approval Criteria (§210-75.A.(1)(d))  Approval criteria.Before the Planning Board may issue the special permit,it shall              determine each of the following:  1.That the proposed development constitutes a desirable development in          the neighborhood and in the town.  2.That the proposed development will not be detrimental to the           neighborhood or the town.  3.That the plans generally provide adequately for convenience and safety           of vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to             adjacent streets,property or improvements,with the understanding that          review of such items will be more detailed at the site plan stage.  4.That the plans appear to provide adequate methods of disposal of            sewerage,refuse and other wastes,adequate methods for drainage for           surface water and seasonal flooding,if any,and adequate provision of            water for domestic purposes,with the understanding that review of such            items will be more detailed at the site plan stage.  5.That the plan complies with the Master Plan.  6.That the provisions of § 210-72A and B of this article have been met.  7.That the Town of Hopkinton has not met the statutory goal to provide              10%of its housing stock as affordable housing pursuant to Sections 20             through 23 of Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General laws.​Note:            This criterion was adopted after the project was approved,therefore           this does not apply to this project.      For previous amendments voted by the Board,it was determined that if             proposed changes to the project did not affect or modify these items,then the               criteria continued to be met (or not met, if applicable).     Site Plan Approval Criteria (§210-75.A.(2)(d))  Approval criteria.  14 1.Before the Planning Board may approve the site plan,it shall determine             each of the following:  a.That the plans provide adequately for convenience and safety of           vehicular and pedestrian movement within the site and in relation to            adjacent streets, property or improvements.  b.That the plans assure the adequacy of the methods of disposal of             sewerage,refuse and other wastes and the methods of drainage for            surface water and seasonal flooding, if any.  c.All of the provisions of this Chapter,including §210-72A and B,have              been complied with and all necessary special permits and variances           have been granted from the Board of Appeals.  2.If the Planning Board does not make all of the above determinations,it              shall deny the application stating its reasons for such denial.    Pursuant to §210-75.B.,the approved garden apartment site plan may be            modified or amended by the Planning Board on its own motion or,as with this                case,upon application by the developer.If the Board determines that such             modifications are significant,it shall hold a public hearing in accordance with the              requirements and process of a new site plan submission,as set forth in              §210-75.A.(2).The Board should determine whether the modifications proposed          are considered significant.If so determined,the project will be advertised and             noticed as required.If determined not to be significant,the Board is able to               approve the changes at this hearing.     6.7.Board Actions  The application before the Board with regard to the advertised public hearing is              for an amendment to the Special Permit for the GARD and an amendment to the                Site Plan Approval for the relocation of the dwelling unit at 5 West Elm Street.     ●A modification of the Special Permit requires a two-thirds vote of the             Board (6 votes). Deb Fein-Brug is not eligible to vote.  ●A modification of the Site Plan Approval requires a majority vote of the              Board (5 votes). Deb Fein-Brug is not eligible to vote.    7.0 LNG Line Replacement -1)Stormwater Management Permit,2)Earth Removal            Permit - Eversource Energy    7.1.Background   The proposed project involves the installation of a 12-inch gas line to replace the               existing 6-inch gas line within Hopkinton.Approximately 1.1 miles of pipe are             proposed to be replaced.Approximately 3.71 miles of pipe is proposed to be              replaced in total,including the work proposed in Ashland.The 12-inch pipe is              proposed to be buried.     From the Applicant:   The Transfer Line is an existing,high-pressure distribution pipeline that runs from             Eversource’s Wilson Street Gate Station in Hopkinton to the Pond Street Gate Station              15 in Ashland within an existing 20 –30-foot-wide permanent easement.This            approximately 25,000-foot-long pipeline includes approximately 2,200 feet of 12-inch          diameter pipe on the Hopkinton end (west),approximately 3,100 feet of 12-inch             diameter pipe on the Ashland end (east)and approximately 19,600 feet of 6-inch              diameter between the two 12-inch sections.The 6-inch diameter section of pipeline is              the subject of this replacement project.    The project is subject to the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Control Bylaw and              Stormwater Regulations as it is proposed that more than one acre of land is to                be disturbed as part of this work.The proposed work is not anticipated to               remove more than 500 cubic yards of soil,however,the Applicant has applied              for an earth removal permit to ensure adequate coverage during construction,            should this threshold be exceeded.     The Applicant has stated that,“​given the incremental and phased construction            approach that will take place over a two-year period in Hopkinton,the Company does               not anticipate having more than one (1)acre of earth disturbed at any one time.​”                However,it was the determination of the Land Use Department that the             disturbance amount in the Bylaw is cumulative and not determined by what is              currently disturbed at any one time.      7.2.Regulatory Review  The proposed work is subject to the Stormwater Management and Erosion            Control Bylaw (Chapter 172) and the Earth Removal Bylaw (Chapter 96).     Chapter 172, Stormwater Management and Erosion Control   The proposed work must comply with the Stormwater Regulations,adopted in            2008 and revised in 2014.     Chapter 96, Earth Removal   The proposed work shall comply with all general requirements set forth in             Section 96-3, unless waived by the Planning Board.     7.3.Relevant Materials for this Meeting  ●Application for SMP and Earth Removal, dated 6/5/19  ○Too large to email, linked here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yu9w67emAeV-PP6kFSI635wjSj7pvhK A/view?usp=sharing   ●BETA Stormwater Review Letter, dated 7/8/19  ●Letter from Board of Health, dated 7/11/19  ●Email from John Westerling, DPW, dated 6/17/19  ●Email from Rebekah Lacey, Town Counsel, dated 7/15/19  ●Applicant Presentation from meeting on 7/22/19  ●Response from Applicant to Town Counsel Comments, dated 8/30/19  ●Email from Brendan Tedstone, dated 8/19/19    7.4.Comments Received  16 A comment review letter from BETA,dated 7/8/19,provided the following            comments:    E1​.Provide a plan outlining anticipated truck routes.(Earth Removal           Requirements)    SW1​.BETA recommends a condition that requires the submission of the signed             SWPPP prior to commencement of construction. (Standard 8)    SW2​.BETA recommends a condition that requires the submission of SWPPP            inspection reports to the Planning Board. (Standard 8)    SW3​. Documents submitted indicate that the contactor is responsible to  a. Provide restoration inspection reports to the Planning Board until site is  Stabilized.  b. Notify the Planning Board when the site is stabilized.    BETA recommends these be included as conditions. (Standard 8)    SW4​. Provide a signed statement prior to construction. (Standard 10)    A letter from the Hopkinton Health Department included the following           comments:  ●During permitted activity at the site,sanitary facilities must be provided,            in adequate number and with proper frequency of service to address the             sanitary and hygienic needs of the workforce.Permit for portable toilets            may be obtained from the Health Department.  ●Portable toilets must be serviced by a waste hauler permitted by the             Town of Hopkinton.  ●To remove the oil and/or hazardous waste and waste residues contained            in the pipeline scheduled for abandonment,the pipeline must be           pumped and flushed prior to abandonment.  ●Soils and/or surface materials impacted during pumping and flushing          must be securely stockpiled until they can be removed for permitted            disposal.  ●The wastes,waste liquids and contaminated soils generated during the           pumpline abandonment must be contained,manifested and transported         for offsite disposal in accordance with appropriate local,State and           Federal regulations.  ●To limit nuisance dust and noise,adequate control measures must be            implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the project.  17 ●Work activities must be completed in accordance with the Town of            Hopkinton Bylaw requirements for earth removal,use of construction          equipment and construction waste or debris.    An email from John Westerling,DPW Director included the comment that he asks              Eversource to notify abutters of the work.     An email from Rebekah Lacey, Town Counsel included the following comments:    Earth Removal Permit Application  1.Section 96-5(3)of the Earth Removal Bylaw states that “[a]n applicant            shall submit adequate evidence of ownership or authority to seek the            permit.”No copy of,or Book and Page reference for,Eversource’s            easement was provided in the application.An online article refers to an             “order-of-taking document made by Northeastern Transmission Gas Co.         in 1951,”but we could not locate the document via the Registry of Deeds               online search function.Eversource should provide the relevant         document(s) so that the extent of its property rights can be understood.  2.Eversource needs (but did not request)a waiver of the requirements at             §96-3.E (depth to groundwater) and H (100-foot buffer strip).  3.Eversource states in Section 1.0 of the application narrative,“Although           the exact volume of off-site soil disposal is not known at this time,it is                anticipated to be below the 500 cubic yard threshold for Surplus Earth at              §96-4(A.)(3)of the Town of Hopkinton’s Earth Removal Bylaw.”However,           BETA’s peer review estimates that the project will generate approximately           1300 cubic yards of surplus earth.Eversource should provide more           detailed information about the generation and disposal of surplus earth.  4.The Planning Board should consider whether “retiring”the existing pipe           in place (as proposed in Eversource’s application) is acceptable.  5.Eversource provided minimal information about traffic control and         roadway excavation safety measures,necessary for the Planning Board to           evaluate the permit criterion at §96-6.B(2)(d)(“The earth removal activity           will not result in traffic conditions on roads in the area of the earth               removal activity which will cause unsafe and dangerous conditions.”).We           recommend that the Planning Board require that Eversource submit a           Traffic Management Plan and a Street Opening Plan and make approval            of those plans by the relevant Town authorities and compliance with the             approved plans a condition of the permit.  6.In addition to the above,we recommend that the Planning Board include             all of the conditions included in the liquefaction facility ERP (modified as             appropriate to this permit).  Stormwater Management Permit Application  18 1.We agree with the recommendations made in BETA’s peer review.  2.We recommend that conditions similar to the ones included in the            liquefaction facility SWMP be included in this permit.  3.We suggest that the Planning Board require Eversource to pay for a             consultant to work on behalf of the Town performing site inspections and             monitoring compliance with the permit,as provided for in Section 6.C.2 of             the Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations.  The Applicant has submitted a letter addressing the comments from all Town             bodies as set forth above.As a result of this,the Applicant has requested               additional relief for the proposed project.   7.5.Decision Criteria   Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Criteria  The proposed activities must comply with the performance standards as set            forth in the Stormwater Regulations,meeting the Stormwater Management          Standards of the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Policy.     As set forth in the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw:​Unless             specifically altered in the Stormwater Regulations,stormwater        management practices that are designed,constructed,and maintained in          accordance with these design and sizing criteria will be presumed to be             protective of Massachusetts water quality standards.    Earth Removal Criteria  A.The applicant for a permit shall have the burden of proving by a              preponderance of the credible evidence that the work proposed in the            permit application will meet the requirements of this chapter.  B.Earth removal permits may be granted by the Board if it finds each of the                following:  (1)The proposed earth removal conforms to the purpose of the chapter.  (2)The earth removal operation on the permitted lot will not:  (a)Be injurious or dangerous to the public health or safety.  (b)Produce noise,dust or other effects detrimental to the normal           use of adjacent property.  (c)Have a material adverse effect on the health or safety of            persons living in the neighborhood or on the use or amenities            of adjacent land.  (d)The earth removal activity will not result in traffic conditions on            roads in the area of the earth removal activity which will cause             unsafe and dangerous conditions.  (e)The regulations contained in this chapter will be complied with.    7.6.Board Actions  ●For the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Permit,the Board           may approve,approve with conditions,disapprove based upon a          determination set forth in Section F.of the Stormwater Management           19 Regulations,or disapprove “without prejudice”.A majority vote of the           Board is required for approval.All members are eligible to vote.A             decision is due September 16, 2019.   ●For Earth Removal Permit,the Board may approve,approve with           conditions,or disapprove the permit application.A majority vote of the            Board is required for approval.All members are eligible to vote.A             decision is due September 16, 2019.     7.7.Other  7.7.1.Requested Waivers  As part of the Applicant’s response to comments,the following waivers            are now being requested:    ●§96.3.E Depth to Groundwater  Section §96-3.E states that the depth of excavation for any earth            removal operation shall not be closer than seven feet above the            spring high-water table,as determined by observation of soil profiles           or test wells.Given that the Project easement extends for           approximately 1.2 miles through the Town of Hopkinton in areas of            variable topography and substrate conditions,groundwater levels will         fluctuate throughout the project area.Eversource requests a waiver          because the proposed trench excavation will temporarily expose         shallow water table and will be backfilled immediately following pipe           installation with native soil material to restore the ground to           pre-construction condition.    ●§96-3.H Buffer Strip  Section §96-3.H states a buffer strip of undisturbed land not less than             100 feet wide shall be maintained at all boundaries of the lot,             including at all street lines,on which an earth removal operation            occurs.In the event that an earth removal permit is issued for             adjoining lots under the same ownership,the Board may waive the            buffer strip requirement in such locations as it deems appropriate.           The Project involves construction within an existing utility easement,          which crosses multiple properties in Hopkinton over its 1.2-mile          length.The Transfer Line easement is currently maintained in a           non-forested condition to facilitate pipe inspections and other         operation needs.    Accordingly,buffer strips are not present within the easement at           property boundaries and are not consistent with the continued          operation and maintenance of the Transfer Line. That said, the Project  will temporarily disturb soils and vegetation within the easement          during construction,but once restoration is complete,vegetation will          be allowed to regrow in the easement.    7.7.2.Proposed Conditions  20 Earth Removal Permit  1.The duration of the permit shall be for 24 months,which shall             start on the date that earth removal activity commences.The           Applicant shall notify the Planning Board and the Earth Removal           Agent in writing of the commencement date,at least 48 hours in             advance.     2.Earth removal activity shall occur only between the hours of 7:00            AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday,and 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM on               Saturday,with traffic on public roadways limited during the school           commuting hours and in accordance with the Traffic Management          Plan to be prepared in conjunction with the Town.The Traffic            Management Plan shall be completed and in place prior to the            commencement of construction.     3.The permit is not assignable.    4.The Applicant shall post a bond or make a deposit with the Town              in the amount of $10,000 to guarantee conformity with the           provisions or conditions of the permit.The guarantee shall be           deposited with the Town prior to commencement of operations          under this permit.The Town may use the bond or deposit in the              event that the Applicant does not comply with all of the terms and              conditions of the permit and complete all restoration in a manner            satisfactory to the Board and in accordance with the permit;           significant public safety hazards exist which will not be addressed           by the Applicant;or material environmental damage has resulted          from the earth removal activity and remediation will not be           addressed by the Applicant in a manner satisfactory to the Board.    5.The Applicant shall submit a photographic survey of Cross Street           and Legacy Farms Road North (old Rafferty Road)in the vicinity of             the project prior to and upon completion of earthwork activity.           The photographic survey shall clearly show the conditions of the           roadways that are to be used during the project before and after             earthwork activity commences.The Applicant shall be responsible         for repairing any damage to the roadway caused by the project.    6.In the event that any of the permit conditions are not faithfully             observed and performed,the Board shall have the authority to           revoke the permit at any time,in accordance with the provisions of             the Earth Removal Bylaw.    21 7.Earth removal activities shall not commence until the Applicant          submits a Traffic Management Plan and a Street Opening Plan and            to the relevant Town authorities and provides the Planning Board           with evidence of approval of these plans.    8.Earth removal activities shall not commence until all required          permits and approvals have been obtained.     9.Noise and Dust mitigation strategies as outlined in the response           letter from Eversource Energy,dated August 20,2019,shall be           included in a construction management plan and submitted to the           Planning Board prior to the start of construction.     Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Permit  1.All erosion and sediment controls shall comply with the following           performance criteria:   ●Minimize total area of disturbance and protect natural features          and soil.  ●Sequence activities to minimize simultaneous areas of        disturbance.Mass clearings and grading of the entire site shall           be avoided.  ●Minimize peak rate of runoff in accordance with the          Massachusetts Stormwater Standards.  ●Minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation during        construction,provided that prevention of erosion is preferred         over sedimentation control.  ●Divert uncontaminated water around disturbed areas.  ●Maximize groundwater recharge.  ●Install and maintain all Erosion and Sediment Control         measures in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications        and good engineering practices.   ●Prevent off-site transport of sediment.  ●Protect and manage on and off-site material storage areas          (overburden and stockpiles of dirt,borrow areas,or other          areas used solely by the permitted project are considered a           part of the project).  ●Comply with applicable Federal,State and local laws and          regulations including waste disposal,sanitary sewer or septic         22 system regulations,and air quality requirements,including        dust control.  ●Prevent significant alteration of habitats mapped by the         Massachusetts Natural Heritage &Endangered Species       Program as Endangered,Threatened or Of Special Concern,         Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools,          and Priority Habitats of Rare Species from the proposed          activities.   ●Institute interim and permanent stabilization measures,which        shall be instituted on a disturbed area as soon as practicable            but no more than 14 days after construction activity has           temporarily or permanently ceased on that portion of the site.  ●Properly manage on-site construction and waste materials.  ●Prevent off-site vehicle tracking of sediments.  ●Dust shall be controlled at the site.   ●Divert offsite runoff from highly erodible soils and steep slopes           to stable areas.    2.The project shall comply with the following Erosion and Sediment           Control requirements:  ●Prior to any land disturbance activities commencing on the          site,the applicant shall physically mark limits of no land           disturbance on the site with tape,signs,or orange construction           fence,so that workers can see the areas to be protected.The             physical markers shall remain in place until a Certificate of           Completion has been issued.  ●Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures shall be         installed prior to soil disturbance.Measures shall be taken to           control erosion within the project area.Sediment in runoff          water shall be trapped and retained within the project area.           Wetland areas and surface waters shall be protected from          sediment.   ●Sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches ¼to ½            the height of a hay bale.Sediment shall be removed from silt             fence prior to reaching the load-bearing capacity of the silt           fence which may be lower than ¼ to ½ the height.  ●Sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation ponds shall         be removed when design capacity has been reduced by 50           percent.   23 ●Soil stockpiles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each             workday.Stockpile side slopes shall not be greater than 2:1.All            stockpiles shall be surrounded by sediment controls.   ●Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be            stabilized with seeding,wood chips,bark mulch,tarpaulins,or          any other approved methods.  ●For active construction areas such as borrow or stockpile          areas,roadway improvements and areas within 50 feet of a           building under construction,a perimeter sediment control        system shall be installed and maintained to contain soil.   ●A tracking pad or other approved stabilization method shall be           constructed at all entrance/exit points of the site to reduce the            amount of soil carried onto roadways and off the site.  ●Permanent seeding shall be undertaken in the spring from          March through May,and in late summer and early fall from            August to October 15.During the peak summer months and in            the fall after October 15,when seeding is found to be            impractical,appropriate temporary stabilization shall be       applied.Permanent seeding may be undertaken during the         summer if plans provide for adequate mulching and watering.   ●All slopes steeper than 3:1 (h:v,33.3%),as well as perimeter            dikes,sediment basins or traps,and embankments must,upon          completion,be immediately stabilized with sod,seed and         anchored straw mulch,or other approved stabilization        measures.Areas outside of the perimeter sediment control         system must not be disturbed.   ●Temporary sediment trapping devices must not be removed         until permanent stabilization is established in all contributory         drainage areas.   ●All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be          removed after final site stabilization.Disturbed soil areas         resulting from the removal of temporary measures shall be          permanently stabilized within 30 days of removal.    3.A minimum of seven days prior to the start of construction,a             detailed construction sequence shall be submitted to the Principal          Planner by the site contractor for review and approval.The           approved construction sequence shall be followed throughout the         course of the construction and shall be altered only with prior            review and written approval from the Principal Planner.    24 4.A copy of the signed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be            provided to the Board prior to construction.     5.All required SWPPP Stormwater Construction Site Inspection        Reports shall be submitted to the Principal Planner within 14 days of             each inspection.    6.An adequate stockpile of erosion control materials shall be on site at             all times for emergency or routine replacement and shall include           materials to repair or replace silt fences,hay bales,stone filters,            berms or any other devices planned for use during construction.    7.The disturbed area shall be temporarily stabilized by hydroseeding if           construction of the replacement pipeline is not commenced within          30 days of lot clearing.    8.Construction shall not commence until all required permits and          approvals have been obtained.     9.The contractor and/or applicant shall provide restoration inspection         reports to the Planning Board until site is stabilized and notify the             Planning Board when the site is stabilized.    10.Eversource shall provide sufficient funding to the Town for a           consultant to work on behalf of the Town in performing site            inspections and monitoring compliance with the permit,as provided          for in Section 6.C.2 of the Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations.    8.0 Cross Street - Scenic Road Application - Eversource Energy    8.1.Background   This application is related to the LNG Pipeline proposal,as the easement for the               pipeline travels across Cross Street.The work proposed is to temporarily alter             approximately five (5)feet of existing rock wall within the road layout,which will               be rebuilt to the current condition after the completion of work.No trees are               proposed to be cut as part of this work.     8.2.Regulatory Review  The proposed work has been duly noticed as required in the Scenic Roads Bylaw.               Cross Street is designated as a scenic road for the entire length and the rock wall                 to be temporarily altered is within the public road layout.     8.3.Relevant Materials for this Meeting  ●Scenic Road Application, dated 7/11/19  ●Application Narrative and Exhibits, dated July 2019  ●Overall Site Plan, dated 6/14/19  ●Email from John Westerling, DPW Director, dated 7/29/19  ●Email from Rebekah Lacey, Town Counsel, dated 9/3/19  25   8.4.Comments Received  Town Counsel Comments:  1.The application does not clearly and specifically address the criteria set            forth in Section 160-6 of the Hopkinton Scenic Roads Bylaw.Each of these              criteria should be addressed individually.    2.The application states that only “saplings”are present within the           right-of-way,but it appears from the photos and plan that that statement             may not be accurate.The applicant should more specifically evaluate           whether any trees greater than 3 inches in diameter at breast height (per              §160-1 of the Bylaw)are present within the right-of-way within the Scenic             Road Layout.If any are,the applicant should state whether any of these              trees will be cut or removed.    3.Since the stone wall extends only 5 feet into the southern portion of the               right-of-way (according to the application form),it is not clear why            temporary removal of the wall is necessary,given that the new gas line              will be installed in the northern portion of the right-of-way.    4.The applicant should provide a copy of the archeological survey report            described on page 4 of the application narrative,as well as any responses              received from tribal representatives and the Massachusetts Historical         Commission.    DPW Director Comments:  None.    8.5.Decision Criteria   The Planning Board’s decision on any application for proposed work affecting            scenic roads shall be based on consideration of the following criteria (§160-6):  ●The degree to which the proposed work would adversely affect the scenic  and aesthetic values upon which the scenic road designation was  originally based.  ●The necessity for the proposed work in terms of public safety, welfare, or  convenience.  ●Compensatory action proposed, such as replacement of trees or walls.  ●Availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed work which could  reduce or eliminate anticipated damage to trees or stone walls.  ●Whether the proposed work would compromise or harm other  environmental or historical values.  ●Consistency of the proposed work with previously adopted Town plans           and policies.    26 8.6.Public Hearing Outline  None.     8.7.Board Actions  The Board’s votes on the submitted materials will consist of:    ●For the Scenic Road Application -Decision is due 21 days after the close               of the public hearing and a simple majority vote is required for approval.              All members are eligible to vote.       8.8.Other  None.     9.0 223 Pond Street - Scenic Road Application - Christine and Andre Navez    9.1.Background   The proposed work is to temporarily remove approximately 15 feet of existing             rock wall to accommodate installation of a septic system.The Applicant states             that the wall will be rebuilt in kind after the completion of the work.Trees are                 proposed to be removed as part of this work,however,the trees are located on                private property and therefore not subject to the Scenic Road permit process.     9.2.Regulatory Review  The proposed work has been duly noticed as required in the Scenic Roads Bylaw.               Pond Street is designated as a scenic road for the entire length and the rock wall                 to be temporarily altered is within the public road layout.     9.3.Relevant Materials for this Meeting  ●Scenic Road Application, dated 8/5/19  ●Email from John Westerling, DPW Director, dated 8/6/19    9.4.Comments Received  Principal Planner Comments:  The proposed work appears to conform to the requirements of the Scenic Roads              bylaw.The Applicant has proposed to temporarily alter the rock wall and rebuild              to the existing condition.     DPW Director Comments:  None.    9.5.Decision Criteria   The Planning Board’s decision on any application for proposed work affecting            scenic roads shall be based on consideration of the following criteria (§160-6):  ●The degree to which the proposed work would adversely affect the scenic  and aesthetic values upon which the scenic road designation was  originally based.  27 ●The necessity for the proposed work in terms of public safety, welfare, or  convenience.  ●Compensatory action proposed, such as replacement of trees or walls.  ●Availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed work which could  reduce or eliminate anticipated damage to trees or stone walls.  ●Whether the proposed work would compromise or harm other  environmental or historical values.  ●Consistency of the proposed work with previously adopted Town plans           and policies.    9.6.Public Hearing Outline  None.     9.7.Board Actions  The Board’s votes on the submitted materials will consist of:    ●For the Scenic Road Application -Decision is due 21 days after the close               of the public hearing and a simple majority vote is required for approval.              All members are eligible to vote.     9.8.Other  None.     10.0 57 Hayden Rowe -Major Site Plan Review -Chesmore Funeral Home and              Cremation Services, Inc.    10.1.Background   The Applicant is proposing the “addition of a chapel,replicated barn,and will              renovate bathroom facilities,prep room,and added garage space.”The purpose            of these additions and improvements is to facilitate the use of a larger chapel,               allow for safer queuing of people in larger services,upgrading of bathrooms,             and an employee parking area below the proposed reconstructed structure.     The Applicant states that the proposed work is not anticipated to increase the              demand for water or sewer services,no increase in traffic impacts,no increase in               employees.     The barn has already been demolished under an issued demolition permit.    10.2.Regulatory Review  The proposed addition is larger than 5,000 square feet,which includes the             basement area pursuant to Article XX,therefore classifying the proposed work            as a major project.     §210-136.1 Site Plan Standards  The site plan shall be designed to conform to the following Site Plan Standards:  28 A.Site disturbance in wetland buffer zones and to slopes in excess of 25%shall               be minimized.  B.Unique natural and historic features shall be preserved whenever feasible,           and the use of §210-117.2,Lots with Historic Structures,shall be considered              as a mechanism to do so, where appropriate.   C.Tree, vegetation and soil removal shall be minimized.  D.The site activities shown on the Site Plan shall be screened from view from               abutting properties in residential use.Methods of screening may include           solid fencing,landscaping or other proposals of the Applicant,subject to            review by the Planning Board.Such screening may be located on or off-site.If               located off-site,written permission of the off-site property owner shall be            provided to the Board.  E.All utilities shall be underground.  F.Exposed storage areas,machinery,service areas,truck loading areas,utility           buildings and structures and other similar uses shall be visually screened            from abutting properties and those using public ways.Screening methods           may consist of solid fencing,landscaping or similar proposals submitted by            the Applicant, subject to review by the Planning Board.  G.The site plan shall show measures to reduce and abate noise and odors              generated from the site that will impact surrounding properties.  H.The site plan shall comply with all zoning requirements.  I.The site plan shall maximize the convenience and safety of vehicular and             pedestrian movement within the site and to and from adjacent public ways.If              supporting documentation,such as a traffic or parking study,submitted to            the Planning Board indicates that the vehicular and pedestrian traffic           movement depicted on the site plan and proposed in the application will             have a significant negative impact or impacts on the site or within the              adjacent ways, such impacts shall be mitigated by the Applicant.  J.Parking areas shall be designed so that they are safe and convenient and do               not detract from the use and enjoyment of proposed structures.Parking            areas shall be designed to facilitate safe pedestrian access to the structures             and other on-site facilities.  K.The site plan shall minimize the number of curb cuts on public ways.  L.Driveways shall be designed to ensure safe sight distances at interior and             exterior intersections and along driveways,in accordance with applicable          AASHTO requirements.  M.Sidewalks shall be provided along the entire frontage of the subject property             along existing public ways.The Planning Board may approve alternative           provisions or waive the requirements of this Standard in situations where            sidewalk construction or use is not feasible or practical.  N.Levels of illumination shall be provided as follows:[Amended 5-6-2015 ATM.            Art. 36]  (1)No property may have exterior lighting that exceeds the average           illumination level recommended by the Illuminating Engineering        Society of North America for such use as set forth in “Lighting Facilities              for Parking Facilities,”Illuminating Engineering Society,2014 and “The          Lighting Handbook,” 10th Ed., Illuminating Engineering Society, 2011.  29 (2)For pole mounted lights in parking and driveway areas,the height of             the light source shall not exceed 15 feet,which shall be measured             from the ground at the base of the pole to the bottom of the fixture.  (3)Pedestrian area lighting shall utilize fully shielded fixtures,and the           height of light source shall not exceed 12 feet,measured from the             ground at the base of the pole to the bottom of the fixture.  (4)No exterior lighting may interfere with the safe movement of motor            vehicles on public ways or private ways open to the public.  (5)Mercury vapor lamps shall be prohibited.  (6)Uplighting shall be permitted only when used in one of the following             manners:  (a)To light a primary entrance,when the fixture or lamp is            wall-mounted under an architectural element (e.g.,roofs over         walkways,entries or overhanging,nontranslucent eaves)so        that the uplighting is fully captured;  (b)To light local, state or national flags; or  (c)To highlight or illuminate a building facade or landscaping,or           to highlight or illuminate statues or monuments.  (7)Floodlighting shall be permitted only if a fully shielded fixture is            utilized and no lighting will fall onto the property of others.  (8)Safety and security lighting shall use motion sensors,photocells,or           photocells or timers to control duration of nighttime illumination.  (9)Exterior lighting of recreation facilities shall utilize fully shielded          fixtures and,except as authorized by Special Permit or Site Plan            Approval,shall be turned off by 10:00 p.m.or at the conclusion of an               activity begun before 10:00 p.m.;provided,however,that in any event            the exterior lighting shall be turned off by midnight.  (10)Blinking,flashing,moving,revolving and flickering lights,as well as           lighting that changes intensity or color shall be prohibited except for            lighting for public safety or traffic control and lighting required by the             U.S.Federal Aviation Administration for air traffic control and warning           purposes.  (11)Notwithstanding any provisions of this subsection to the contrary,          sidewalks that run along the perimeter of a site and are in a public               right of way or on abutting property may be illuminated,and            illumination may spill onto abutting non-residential property if         requested in writing by the abutting property owner.    Exterior lighting that does not conform to the provisions of this            subsection may be allowed by special permit from the Planning Board            if the Planning Board finds that such exterior lighting will be            consistent with the Purposes of this Article,or that there are other             demonstrable community,health,safety or welfare benefits that will          be served by the exterior lighting.No special permit may be granted             pursuant to this subsection unless the Planning Board determines          that the proposed exterior lighting is appropriate for the size and use             of the property, any buildings thereon, and the neighborhood setting.  30 O.Adequate access shall be provided to each structure for emergency vehicles            and personnel.  P.The site plan shall conform to applicable Massachusetts Department of           Environmental Protection Stormwater Management Regulations.The site        plan shall show adequate measures to prevent pollution of surface water            and groundwater,to minimize erosion and sedimentation and to prevent           changes in the potential for flooding.Stormwater management facilities shall           be designed so that neighboring properties,public ways and public storm            drainage systems will not be adversely impacted.  Q.Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof,grounds or            buildings shall be screened from view from the ground.  R.All dumpsters shall be screened from public view.    10.3.Relevant Materials for this Meeting  ●Site Plan Application Package, dated 8/12/19  ●Site Plans, dated 8/8/19, revised 8/13/19  ○Too large to email, linked here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f8Asx0h_M2P4l_lFYDWuX-EGwaNCI94 g/view?usp=sharing   ●Architectural Plans, dated 5/14/19  ○Too large to email, linked here:  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1odgJU3uHfrOPFtl_javMmwzrGNq-_TP 8/view?usp=sharing   ●Stormwater Report, dated 8/8/19  ●Construction Management Plan  ●Planning Board Narrative document, dated 8/9/19  ●Additional Narrative, dated 8/13/19  ●Email from John Westerling, DPW, dated 8/13/19  ●Email from Chief Slaman, FD, dated 8/20/19  ●Board of Health comments, dated 9/4/19  ●BETA Review Letter, dated 9/3/19  ●Design Review Board Recommendation, dated 8/22/19    10.4.Comments Received  John Westerling, DPW:  None.     Chief Slaman, FD:  The observations that stand out are the front access,the reference to stacked              parking and our ability to travel through to Holt Street.The Engineer has              commented that all access requirements are met.Below are code references            and comments.  ●Per 527 CMR 1 (2015 ed),Chapter 18.2.3.2.1:"A fire department access             road shall extend to within 50 ft of at least one exterior door that can be                 opened from the outside and that provides access to the interior of the              building."  ○Fire department access roads are defined as having an          unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet,unobstructed vertical           31 clearance of not less that 13 ft 6 in,and surfaces designed and              maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus on an            all weather driving surface.  ●Comment related to code reference:  ○Currently Hayden Rowe Street meets the qualifications of a fire           department access road per 527 CMR 1,but the distance to the             closest exterior door of 57 Hayden Rowe Street exceeds 50 feet.  ●Additional Comments:  ○A swept path analysis of the existing u-shaped driveway will assist            us in assessing if our vehicles will be able to exit Hayden Rowe              Street during an emergency for the safety of our responders,as            well as passing traffic.  ○The proposed stacked parking solution would not allow         emergency apparatus access to either side or rear of the structure.            It would also eliminate our secondary means of access from Holt            Street.These factors will increase risk for all involved parties           during an emergency event.    Shaun McAuliffe, BOH:  ●The funeral home and outbuilding is serviced with municipal water and            sewer service, as such, well or septic installation is not a concern.  ●The construction and demolition work must be completed in accordance           with all applicable rules and regulations as promulgated by the           Commonwealth of MA (Asbestos, Lead, Dust and Pest Controls).  ●Efforts should be taken to minimize nuisance conditions during the           development process.  ●As stated in the Stormwater Report,any illicit discharges identified will be             terminated and the proposed site uses will not generate,store or            discharge any pollutants to the groundwater and/or wetland resource          areas.    Design Review Board:  ●Lights to be installed on-site shall be those determined to be considerate             to adjacent properties.  10.5.Decision Criteria   The Planning Board shall issue a “Decision of Site Plan Review”in one of the                following forms:  A.A written approval of the application subject to any reasonable conditions,            modifications and restrictions relating to the Site Plan Standards contained in            Section 210-136.1; or  B.Disapproval of the application if the Applicant fails to furnish the information,             materials or fees required in this Article or by the Submission Requirements             and Procedures adopted by the Planning Board,or if the application and site              plan present a problem so intractable so as to admit of no reasonable              solution.  32 Notwithstanding the above,regulation of uses and structures referred to in            section 3 of Chapter 40A of the Massachusetts General Laws shall be limited to               the extent required by said section.    10.6.Public Hearing Outline  1.Project introduction and review - Applicant  2.Staff Report  3.Consultant Review  4.Planning Board members and Public – Add to Detailed Discussion items  5.Detailed Discussion, with Public Comment for each topic  5.1.1.Vehicular and pedestrian traffic flow; truck traffic flow;  emergency vehicle access   5.1.2.Intended uses   5.1.3.Stormwater management  5.1.4.Site lighting   5.1.5.Utilities; Water/Sewer use  5.1.6.Parking lot layout; dumpster location; snow storage/snow  removal  5.1.7.Noise; HVAC/exhaust systems; Screening of HVAC (if  applicable)  5.1.8.Crosswalk location; Sidewalks  5.1.9.Building design and landscaping  5.1.10.Historic Structures (if applicable)  5.1.11.Signage  5.1.12.Solar Panels/alternative energy  5.1.13.Affordable Housing Units (if applicable)  5.1.14.Impacts on: 1) schools; 2) other municipal services; 3) value of  neighboring residential properties  5.1.15.Town Department and Board/Committee Comments not  covered above  6.Additional or New Comments and Information  7.Standards/Findings  7.1.1.Discuss Site Plan standards and plan revisions to be made (if  applicable)  7.1.2.Discuss Special Permit findings (if applicable)  7.1.3.Discuss findings and standards for other approvals (if  applicable)  8.Discuss/Vote on waivers (if applicable)  9.Discuss conditions of approval   10.Final public comment  11.Vote to close public hearing  12.Vote on Permits being requested    33 10.7.Board Actions  The Board’s votes on the submitted materials will consist of:    ●For Site Plan Review -Decision is due 90 days after the close of the public                 hearing and a simple majority vote is required for approval,disapproval,            or approval with conditions. All members are eligible to vote.     10.8.Other  None.     11.0 Zoning Board of Appeals Notices  ●25 Grove Street  ●51 Saddle Hill Road  ●26 West Elm Street    12.0 Next Meetings  ●September 23rd  ○Bucklin/Leonard Street  ○Wood Street Solar  ○Legacy Farms Restricted Land Minor Amendment  ○Cedar Street Presentation from Bruce Issadore  ●October 7th  ●October 28th     34 Hopkinton MA1165: Jane Moran Application created: 08/15/2019 Contacts Email jmoran2045@aol.com Cell*(508) 326-7584 Business (508) 435-3807 Home (508) 435-3807 Address 70 East Main St, 70 East Main St Hopkinton MA, 01748 Application details Occupation details Occupation retired law enforcemnet Availability details now Education and Experience After 35 years of Law Enforcement I am still employed as a part time officer. I also serve as Chair of the Upper Charles Trail Committee. Over the years I have been an active observer of the Planning Board, first as a Legacy Farms involved observer/neighbor. The UCTC has vast interest in future trail planning and the potential ability for developers to participate in a conversation. I've noticed over the years that often the "trails" interest gets lost in some of the discussions. I feel I could bring some additional information to the conversation. Attachments Appointment details 1 Planning Board For: 0 Against: 0 Final Recommendation: None Qualifications Workflow Name Description Status Date Clerks Schedule IN PROGRESS Clerks Appoint PENDING Hopkinton MA1169: Mary Elena Arnaut Application created: 08/25/2019 Contacts Email marnaut51@gmail.com Home (508) 435-9772 Address 51 Teresa Road Hopkinton MA, 01748 Application details Occupation details Occupation Retired Availability details Immediately Education and Experience I am a retired IBM professional and a volunteer in Hopkinton (please see my attached resume). I have attended several Planning Board meetings and have an understanding of its function and requirements. I am respectful of all policy and procedures governing the organizations I serve. I have no "conflicts of interest" nor any full-time professional or personal obiligation which would inhibit me to serve as a Planning Board member. If appointed to the vacancy which expires May 2020, I believe my professional experiences and my volunteer credentials would serve the Board well. Thank you for considering my application. Sincerely, Mary Attachments Arnaut_Resume_2019 Appointment details 1 Planning Board For: 0 Against: 0 Final Recommendation: None Qualifications Workflow Name Description Status Date Clerks Schedule IN PROGRESS Clerks Appoint PENDING Hopkinton MA1171: Mike McNamara Application created: 08/26/2019 Contacts Email mike.mcnamara12@gmail.com Address 7 Baker Lane Hopkinton MA, 01748-3110 Application details Occupation details Education and Experience My name is Mike McNamara and I’m running for the Planning Board, 1-year term. My family and I have been residents of Hopkinton for 22 years, our kids have gone through the school system, and I care what happens in town. I enjoyed my time as a Library Trustee, but after 9 years I wanted to do something different. I have been volunteering in town every year in different capacities since 2001. I have always been interested in running for the Planning Board and want to help with the different issues facing the town. The town continues to grow and there is a lot of building and development in process or planned and I can provide a fresh perspective and new ideas. Additional volunteer/service experience includes: Coach for Hopkinton Boys and Girls Youth Soccer, Coach for Hopkinton Youth Baseball and Softball, Coach Hopkinton Boys and Girls Youth Basketball, St. John the Evangelist of Hopkinton Parish Council, Religious Education Teacher St. John the Evangelist of Hopkinton, Worcester Mustard Seed Volunteer, Worcester County Food Bank Volunteer. Thanks. Attachments Appointment details 1 Planning Board For: 0 Against: 0 Final Recommendation: None Qualifications Workflow Name Description Status Date Clerks Schedule IN PROGRESS Clerks Appoint PENDING Hopkinton MA1173: Smriti Choudhury Application created: 09/05/2019 Contacts Email smriti_chou@yahoo.com Cell*(508) 361-8858 Business (617) 526-6024 Address 12 Locust Lane Hopkinton MA, 01748 Application details Occupation details Occupation Attorney Company name WilmerHale Position Associate Education and Experience Dear Sir/Madam: I recently moved to Hopkinton from Ashland and would like to continue serving my community by joining a municipal board. I am a commercial real estate attorney in Boston by profession and have served on the Ashland Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) since 2016 and resigned in August 2019 due to my move to Hopkinton. I am a New England girl, through and through- going to Tufts University for undergrad and Northeastern Law School for law. I absolutely loved serving on the Ashland ZBA and would like to continue my town service at my new home of Hopkinton either on the Planning Board or Board of Appeals. I would prefer to serve on the Planning Board for a different perspective as I have served on the ZBA for over 3 years and would like to be involved in the zoning amendment process and subdivision/ANR applications. As a commercial real estate attorney and private citizen, I am uniquely positioned to understand the business perspectives of a developer but also the views of the local community in preserving the character of the town. I look forward to hearing from you and hope to be given the opportunity to serve this great town of Hopkinton. Please contact me (email preferred) if I can provide any further information for review, such as my resume. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my candidacy. Sincerely, Smriti Attachments Appointment details 1 Board of Appeals (ZBA)For: 0 Against: 0 Final Recommendation: None 2 Planning Board For: 0 Against: 0 Final Recommendation: None Qualifications Workflow Name Description Status Date Clerks Schedule IN PROGRESS Clerks Appoint PENDING Hopkinton MA1167: Sundar Sivaraman Application created: 08/19/2019 Contacts Email sundar@post.harvard.edu Address 20 Carriage Hill Rd Hopkinton MA, 01748 Application details Occupation details Availability details Immediate Education and Experience Education Masters Degree in Management Studies - Harvard Univ (Extension School) Masters Degree in Computer Science - IMT Ghaziabad, India Bachelors Degree in Accounting - Delhi University, India Work experience Director - Digital Analytics - CVS Health - CURRENT Product Management - CVS Health - Sep 2014 to Dec 2018 Attachments Appointment details 1 ZAC For: 0 Against: 0 Final Recommendation: None Qualifications Workflow Name Description Status Date Clerks Schedule IN PROGRESS Clerks Appoint PENDING To be distributed to the Planning Board and added to the public record regarding the early acceptance of Legacy Farms Road North by the Town of Hopkinton. August 20, 2019 Dear Board Members, I am writing to comment on the discussions the Planning Board has been conducting regarding the early acceptance of Legacy Farms Road North (LFRN) so that school bus service can be provided at multiple points along LFRN rather than at the intersection LFRN and Frankland Rd. I commend the Planning Board for its leadership on public safety, for taking the time to visit the site to observe the situation first hand, and for bringing all parties into the discussion. My comment has to do with a potential liability the Town of Hopkinton may be assuming in accepting LFRN. As has been established as far back as 2006 (Ransom Consulting, Results of an evaluation of the distribution of organochlorine pesticides at growing Field 29 A & D of the former Weston Nurseries property, November 16, 2017), the pesticide dieldrin was found to exist in the soil in excess of reportable levels at the site but qualified for an exemption for cleanup and remediation under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP, 310 CMR 40.0000) so long as no soils were transported offsite. The significance of soil being transported offsite is that it may result in the developer being responsible for creating a release or disposal site subject to the MCP for cleanup assessment and remediation. Before the Town of Hopkinton accepts LFRN, it should assess the likelihood that dieldrin contaminated soil was transported from the LFRN site to offsite locations during the construction of LFRN and determine what additional liability, if any, it will be assuming by accepting the road. For reference, a 2018 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) investigation of a recent complaint (CE-18-0000088) of the transport of soil offsite by one of the Legacy Farms developers to several in-town locations is publicly available. Among the actions that were ordered and/or taken as a result of this investigation were the notification of the recipients of the transported soil, comprehensive testing of the transported soil, and the removal of soil from recipient sites. Letters were also sent to the other Legacy Farms developers reiterating their responsibilities with regard to the offsite transport to include providing MassDEP with a list of all properties (and owners) where potentially impacted soils have been distributed. Prior to recommending the acceptance of LFRN, I ask that the Planning Board conduct a public discussion with the developer of LFRN as to the distribution of the excess soil from the construction of LFRN to include a list of all properties (and owners) where soil was distributed. Sincerely Yours, Kathleen Towner 9 Kruger Road   GROWTH STUDY COMMITTEE VACANCIES    The Planning Board is seeking residents interested in serving on the Growth Study Committee for                two (2)at-large positions.The mission statement of the Growth Study Committee and the               anticipated deliverables are detailed below:    Mission Statement  Hopkinton is endowed with open space,natural resources,facilities and programs that promote a               well-educated and healthy community.The mission of this project,utilizing public input,analytics,              and objective experts,is to examine growth trends and development within the Town of Hopkinton                and identify and recommend actions to ensure Hopkinton can continue to support its citizens               throughout their lives to the highest of standards in education,public safety,health,and protection                of natural resources.    Specifically, the project aims to:  ●Proactively manage growth;  ●Enable better planning for town services;  ●Identify parcels or zones that may have a significant impact on future growth patterns within                the Town create plans to ensure continued use that is in the best interest of Hopkinton; and  ●Decrease likelihood of un-friendly 40B developments.     Deliverables shall include:  ●Summary of public input collected throughout the project;  ●Financial impact assessment of growth (residential and commercial)over the past 10 years              (by zoned area);   ●Forecast model of growth and financial impact (forward looking)by zoned area over the next                10 years;   ●Identification and prioritization of current parcels and/or zones with highest potential for             growth/change.Recommend optimal land uses/practices for each and contingency plans if            alternative uses are proposed; and  ●Create POA (Plan of Action)that incorporates major stakeholders (other boards,town             leadership, etc.) and includes cadence and deliverables for ongoing growth monitoring.    The Planning Board is looking forward to appointing an energized and diverse field of applicants  that may be new to government or new to Hopkinton and also those with deep ties to the  community, as well as those representing varied parts of Town and different demographic  constituency groups. ​Interviews will be conducted at the August 12, 2019 Planning Board meeting and  applicants are highly encouraged to attend​.      Those interested in applying should send a letter of interest to John Gelcich, Principal Planner  (​jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov​), 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA 01748 by 5:00 PM on Tuesday,  August 6, 2019. Email is preferred. This letter should contain a statement that is 250 words  or less and includes the following:  ●Why you are interested in serving on this committee;  ●How you are uniquely qualified to serve in this position; and   ●What you look to achieve as a member of this committee.     Letters of interest should note the position for which it is being submitted. For more  information, please call John Gelcich at (508) 497 - 9745.     HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA Monday, July 22, 2019 7:00 P.M. MINUTES - ​(Draft, Not Finished) MEMBERS PRESENT​: Muriel Kramer, Chair, Gary Trendel, Vice Chair, David Paul, Amy Ritterbusch, Patrick Atwell, Frank D'Urso, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Robert Benson MEMBERS ABSENT​: Deb Fein-Brug Present​: John Gelcich, Principal Planner, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant ___________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Trendel opened the meeting at 7:00 P.M. and noted the Board will take care of some administrative and other business while waiting for the Chair to arrive. ●Administrative Business - Minutes The Board reviewed the draft Minutes of June 24, 2019. Mr. Atwell moved to approve the Minutes as written, and Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion. Mr. Gelcich noted the Minutes have been revised since they were distributed to the Board for review to include the documents used at the meeting. Mr. D’Urso moved to amend the motion to approve the Minutes including documents. Mr. Atwell seconded the motion, and the motion to amend passed unanimously. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the amended motion. ●Appointments - Design Review Board Ms. Ritterbusch stated there are 7 applicants for 7 positions. She noted the current members have all asked to be reappointed, and there is now an applicant for the 7th position which has been vacant for a year. Mr. Gelcich stated the Board consists of 5 full members and 2 alternates, and it was decided to make the appointments as a group. Ms. Kramer arrived at this time, and Mr. Trendel filled her in on the discussions held so far. After further discussion, Ms. Kramer moved to appoint Jeanette Thomson, Jeff Doherty, Amy Ritterbusch, Ria McNamara, and Sue-Ellen Stoddard to the Design Review Board as full members, with Deb Fein-Brug and Joe Regan to serve as alternates for a term to expire on July 31, 2019. Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Kramer took over from Mr. Trendel to run the meeting at this time. ●Legacy Farms North School Bus Issue Ms. Kramer noted Legacy Farms North was designed and built through collaboration between the developer, the Town and the state to serve as a bypass road between Routes 135 and 85. She noted the road was opened a couple of years ago with an official ribbon cutting ceremony with state and local officials in attendance and is now beginning to be used consistently. She noted traditionally roads are not accepted until all construction is done and in this case there is still a lot going on. It was noted the DPW Director has not yet weighed in on this issue, and Ms. Kramer stated they have to make sure to get his input. She stated the school bus company is not willing to send buses up there creating a problem with children from the neighborhoods having to get the bus at the corner of Legacy Farms North and Frankland Rd. She stated she witnessed the situation in person just before the end of the school year and there is a safety issue because fast moving traffic on Legacy Farms North does not (have to) stop while the children are waiting for and getting on the bus. She noted the residents are looking for a solution, and it has been suggested to accept the road even though it is not finished. She noted she was a little late tonight because of a conference call with the chairs of the Select Board and School Committee, and although they have different thoughts and probably won’t be able to address the issue before the start of the school year, everyone is willing to work together towards a solution to this somewhat unique situation. John Coutinho, member, Select Board, stated they have to consider short, mid and long term solutions, and the easiest one would be to accept the road as is, leaving the bond in place with lots of conditions. He noted Legacy Farms North has been used as a Town road even since before the ribbon cutting and is doing its job, taking off at least 15% of the traffic to Southborough. He stated the School administration looked into getting a separate bus but the only quote they received was for $300,000/year although that would be for a “luxury” bus and hopefully they misunderstood. Mr. Coutinho stated the developer then suggested a bus to take the children to Frankland Rd. for the time being. He stated in the meantime it was decided to have a police officer there for at least one of the pickups, and during those times they typically had to pull a few people over for speeding. He stated the best solution would be for the Select Board and Planning Board to find a way to accept the road at a special town meeting. Mr. Trendel stated there are costs associated with special town meetings, and it was noted it is not overly expensive but it is a huge undertaking. Mr. Trendel noted a separate bus would be expensive, but perhaps van rentals would be an option, and he would like to suggest carpooling as a temporary solution. Mr. D’Urso stated he likes Mr. Trendel’s suggestion to involve the residents through carpooling as a short/mid term solution. He noted accepting the road via a special town meeting would be the quickest but there is a risk with that in the long term. He suggested installing some type of sturdy shelter for protection from traffic and the elements. It was noted the developer at this point is responsible for snow removal on Legacy Farms North. Mr. Coutinho noted the developer has been very cooperative, but it’s the Town’s responsibility to get the kids to the schools safely although at this point they just have to pick them up at Frankland Rd. Ms. Kramer stated carpooling to Frankland Rd. is not a solution at all due to safety issues, and from her perspective it would have to be carpooling directly to the schools. Ms. Ritterbusch noted it seems scheduling special town meetings has been difficult in the past and she asked if this has even been discussed yet. She noted personally before voting in favor of street acceptance, she would like to see documentation showing why all these other solutions won’t work. She stated additional insurance to address liability issues appeals to her and may be fairly inexpensive so she wants to see cost details. Ms. Kramer noted she was surprised to see a real quick “no” to that idea. The Board discussed other possible solutions including moving the Frankland Rd. stop away from the corner or building a short sidewalk. ●Continued Public Hearings -76 Main St. - 1) Site Plan Review, 2) Flexible Community Special Permit - REC Hopkinton LLC Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to continue the public hearings at the request of the applicant to September 9, 2019, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. ●Legacy Farms North School Bus Issue - Continued Discussion Mr. Paul asked if the Town would plow the sidewalks after the road is accepted, and it was noted it depends on the distance from the schools. He suggested following up on that issue, and Ms. Kramer stated they can certainly ask that question. It was noted that the kids would be picked up on Legacy Farms North at the end of each individual neighborhood and the side streets will be maintained by the developer until the homeowners association takes over. Mr. Trendel noted the big issue at Frankland Rd./Legacy Farms North is cars parked all over the place. It was noted the sidewalk is not necessarily plowed in time for the morning pickup but perhaps they can have the developer do it before 4 A.M. for instance. Mr. Paul asked what is left to do, and it was noted they still have to install street trees and the grass strip between the road and the sidewalk. Ms. Larson-Marlowe summarized the issues at Frankland Rd./Legacy Farms North as reported by the residents and observed by Town officials. She noted a bus shelter is a good idea but probably not big enough based on the number of children, and the residents reportedly already carpool as much as possible. It was noted Legacy Farms has 118 children in the school system as of April 2019 with 41 at the Marathon elementary school which is the age group of the most concern. The Board discussed the possibility of the bus pulling into the right of way of Legacy Farms North in order to be able to stop traffic in both directions, and it was noted that may not be safe enough and the bus company may not be amenable. Mr. Coutinho stated they are trying to get a police officer to stop traffic, but with 3 stops in the morning and 3 in the afternoon that would be an expensive solution. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted carpooling the children to school may be a short term solution but it does not seem right to basically require it. Ms. Kramer agreed, and Mr. Atwell noted requiring carpooling would be absurd putting an extra burden on parents and creating liability issues for them. Mr. Atwell suggested working with the developer on the possibility of a private bus as a short term solution, and find out about the cost of additional liability insurance for expanding the bus route on an unaccepted road. Ms. Kramer stated extra insurance was discussed during the elections but apparently the bus company is not interested in that idea. Mr. Coutinho stated he actually was surprised by the idea but it would have been a good interim solution. Mr. Atwell stated he is in favor of accepting the road as is with conditions if there is precedent. Mr. Coutinho noted the Town within the last 3 years has been accepting “forgotten” streets, which for years had full benefits without realizing they were never accepted as public ways. Ms. Kramer stated no one Board/Committee has yet taken ownership of the issue, and the residents find themselves going from place to place to get answers and unfortunately no one solution has come to the top. She stated if they are going to consider street acceptance, they should first talk to the DPW and the Town’s professional staff but in the meantime no practical short term solution should be ignored. Mr. Trendel asked about the next step, and Mr. Coutinho stated he feels the Planning Board should then take it from there. Ms. Kramer stated the Planning Board was instrumental in the Legacy Farms planning process and the road was intentionally built to bypass downtown but they did not anticipate the school bus issue. Mr. Trendel asked that the Select Board and School Committee be kept up to date as part of the process. The Board scheduled this issue on the agenda for August 12 and asked Mr. Gelcich to invite the DPW Director. Mr. Paul asked if it is possible to keep the bond if the road is accepted, and Mr. Coutinho stated yes, and the developer already agreed. Ms. Ritterbusch stated this issue was brought to the attention of the Select Board during one of the public comment sessions and she feels the Planning Board should ask them to officially put it on one of their agendas, and Ms. Kramer stated she will make a formal request. Ms. Ritterbusch suggested using a crossing guard as a short term, relatively inexpensive solution. Mr. D'Urso stated the school bus route software changes every year based on grade by grade enrollment numbers and they should not be caught off guard in the long term if things change. Mr. Benson arrived at this time. Mr. D’Urso noted moving the bus stop from Frankland Rd. to Legacy Farms North may at least offer more places for the parents to park, and Ms. Kramer stated she was not able to find a good place anywhere in that area. Mr. Paul noted he feels short term solutions are the domain of the School Committee and Select Board, and the Planning Board should focus on getting the road accepted as soon as possible. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated she would like to know how long it would take for this process to take its course, and the School Dept. should be in the loop so that any bus route changes can be effective as soon as possible if special town meeting accepts the road. She noted the developer apparently is willing to cooperate and hopefully the Select Board can focus on short/mid term solutions. Mr. Atwell stated they should get everyone involved and accept the road as soon as possible. Ms. Kramer stated she is in favor of exploring the possibility of road acceptance but they should be open to feedback from the professional staff as to the best plan going forward. She thanked Mr. Coutinho for discussing this with the Board. ●Appointments - Trail Coordination and Management Committee Mr. Gelcich stated Mr. Paul has volunteered for this position, but the Board did not yet officially vote on it. He clarified that in this case the Board makes recommendations to the Select Board and does not make the actual appointment. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to recommend Mr. Paul to be appointed by the Select Board, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted 7 in favor, 1 abstention (Paul). ●Update - I-90/I-495 Interchange Improvements Mr. Paul noted Mr. Trendel, Ms. Kramer and he attended a recent state presentation on the proposed improvements. He noted the state has now decided on the final plan, and it is good news for the neighbors because instead of 50 ft. flyovers they are now proposing them to be only 35 ft. high. It was noted the next public information session has been scheduled for July 25, 2019 at 6:30 P.M. at the Town Hall. Mr. Paul provided a quick update on the design. Mr. Gelcich stated as indicated at a previous presentation the state is required by federal law to do sound mitigation studies for the adjacent neighborhood and that will be done during the environmental review period. Mr. Trendel stated he feels the state has done a pretty comprehensive job of assessing the various aspects of the project, and safety is their top priority. Mr. Paul noted he brought up the possibility of commuter ramps at the Rt. 135/Mass Pike interchange but that is not option so that topic can be taken off the Planning Board agenda. Mr. D’Urso asked about the Fruit St. bridge, and it was noted it will have to be replaced to accommodate widening of Rt. 495 in that location, and because of other area projects Fruit St. will be an open issue in terms of traffic management for a long time. It was noted the Fire Chief at the presentation brought up the possibility of an emergency access off Rt. 495 onto Fruit St. to take traffic off Saddle Hill Rd. and that was dismissed because of the steep grade while Wood St. as an alternative did not appear to offer a lot of advantages. Mr. Gelcich stated they also brought up the extension of the Eversource pipeline into Westborough which will be done about the same time affecting the rotary. Mr. Benson stated he lives on that side of Town, and if the Westborough rotary and Fruit St. are both interrupted, then Saddle Hill Rd. will end up with much more traffic that it can handle. Ms. Kramer stated that is a concern, and as a Board and as Town residents they can always provide feedback. She asked if the state is talking to Eversource, and Mr. Gelcich stated yes. Mr. Paul stated he asked them about a traffic study on Fruit St., and was told they have not gotten to it yet. It was noted that work on the Downtown Corridor will begin in May 2020, repairs to the Fruit St. railroad bridge will start soon, and work on the I-90/I-495 interchange is scheduled from 2022 to 2027 but will be done in phases to some extent. ●Consultant Peer Review Contract - Invitation for Bids (IFB) Mr. Gelcich stated he provided a draft IFB to get the Board’s input on the scope. He noted the content is not confidential per se, but they want to make sure it does not look like one company gets a first shot at the contract. The Board had no changes to the wording and the bidding process will go forward as scheduled. ●71 Frankland Rd. - Seaboard Solar - Informal Discussion Mr. Gelcich stated this concerns redevelopment of 71 Frankland Rd., the former location of Liberty Mutual. Pedro Rodrigues, Seaboard Solar, proponent, appeared before the Board. Mr. Rodrigues noted Seaboard Solar is a real estate/commercial solar company and they have worked in Massachusetts for almost 10 years. He noted they are in the process of buying the former Liberty Mutual site originally presented mainly for real estate purposes, and will be buying the entire property along with 2 other parcels in Hopkinton and a small parcel in Ashland. He noted they are considering installing a commercial solar facility on the 50-acre parcel next to the building but the plan before the Board tonight is just looking at maximizing the entire property without taking the bylaws into consideration, and it is not what they really have in mind. Mr. Rodrigues stated the property is split between the Agricultural and Professional Office zoning districts, and the eventual proposal will be based on the Agricultural zoning requirement as it is the more restrictive of the two. In response to a question of Mr. D’Urso, Mr. Rodrigues noted the building is staying, but adding solar panels to the roof is not feasible. Mr. Rodrigues stated they are currently talking to brokers about prospective tenants for the building. Mr. Trendel asked how much land will be cleared for the solar facility, and Mr. Rodrigues stated the plan before the Board shows 30 acres out of 50, but in reality they plan to clear about 20 acres. Ms. Kramer asked why Seaboard Solar is presenting a plan that does not follow the regulations, and Mr. Rodrigues stated that is the typical first step. Mr. Paul reminded Mr. Rodrigues that all utilities are required to be underground. ●Future Agenda Items Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated she wants to put the Zoning Advisory Committee (ZAC) appointments on the next agenda. Mr. Gelcich asked about the need to advertise and it was noted that is historically part of the process. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated many of the current members are liaisons from other groups, and it was noted the at-large members all have 2- or 3-year terms except for Ria McNamara and John Coutinho who are serving a 1-year term which expires on August 31. Mr. Gelcich listed the members up for reappointment this year: Ted Barker-Hook (representative of the Conservation Commission), Mary Larson-Marlowe (Planning Board), Peggy Shaw (Board of Appeals), Ron Foisy (Chamber of Commerce), and Ria McNamara and John Coutinho as the 1-year at-large members, and the Planning Board only has to reappoint the 2 at-large positions which will then become 2-year appointments. Ms. Kramer stated the Planning Board will reappoint Ms. Larson-Marlowe as its representative as a matter of process. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted the Committee has been reminded that some of the positions are up for reappointment. Mr. Paul stated he would like to talk about sidewalks at one of the next meetings. The Board reviewed the draft agenda for August 12 and it was noted it will be the only meeting that month. Mr. Gelcich provided an update on the Whisper Way Amended Special Permit and Definitive Subdivision applications currently before the Board. He noted there was an informal meeting with the developer and his engineer to discuss the status of the project, and based on voting requirements and eligible voting members, he is considering withdrawing and submitting the exact same applications for a public hearing on August 12, and this is allowed according to Town Counsel’s office. He stated the deadline for the new submission is tomorrow, and it will be more of an administrative procedure where the applicant does not necessarily have to present everything all over again and a recap would be sufficient so that all members are up to date and can participate. Ms. Kramer stated she believes there will be changes to the plan to comply with the lot frontage depth requirements, and Mr. Gelcich noted it would be a minor amendment. Mr. Gelcich stated he identified an issue with the 0 Wood St. (Borrego Solar) application. He noted the plans show the equipment in a separate parcel close to Wood St., which is also in the Woodville Historic District, but the legal notice did not include this parcel and the applicant only provided the names of the abutters to the larger parcel with the arrays. He noted he has requested a revised abutters list and the application will be re-advertised with the correct properties as if the previous hearing did not happen. The Board discussed the minor site plan review application for 97 South St. also scheduled for the next meeting. Ms. Kramer noted the process will be somewhat interesting because it also requires Design Review Board review and their next meeting is not until August 20. Mr. Gelcich noted they talked about this at the last Design Review Board meeting and it was suggested that the members individually review the plans and submit comments to the Planning Board. Mr. Gelcich stated it concerns a new business moving into the former Lonza site and the new tenant wants to make changes to the facade, make 2 separate entrances and redo the parking lot with new landscaping and lighting. Ms. Kramer stated the changes seem minor, and she would not necessarily object to doing it this way but only if there are no issues that should be reviewed by the full Design Review Board in the opinion of the individual members, but it also seems as if they are bypassing the typical process. Board members generally were ok with the idea, and Ms. Ritterbusch noted she just wants to make sure this will be the exception to the rule. Mr. Gelcich stated there should be no back and forth between the Design Review Board and the applicant. ●Continued Public Hearings - Maspenock Woods - Unit #31/5 West Elm St. (Amended Site Plan//Special Permit Applications) & Units 21, 22, 23, 24 (Amended Site Plan and Building Changes) - Maspenock Woods Realty Trust Mr. D’Urso moved to open the public hearings, Mr. Atwell seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Bruce Wheeler, Maspenock Woods Realty Trust, applicant, and Peter Barbieri, Fletcher Tilton, attorney, appeared before the Board. Mr. Barbieri noted since the last meeting and a site walk which was attended by a couple of Planning Board members, they have addressed a number of landscape and erosion issues, and he distributed copies of a landscape plan in connection with the changes to units 21-24. It was noted the plan was submitted after the deadline for Planning Board meetings. Mr. Barbieri stated the landscaping will be installed and finished by September, and the plan will provide 60 ft. of landscaping in between structures. Mr. Paul asked if they will use deer-resistant arborvitae, and Mr. Wheeler noted he will look into it. Mr. D’Urso noted he went out on his own and although it appears the revised layout will fit on paper he is still concerned about overcrowding in this section of the development. He noted the landscape plan shows more trees than he thought there would be, so hopefully that will help unit-to-unit screening. Mr. Gelcich asked if the Board wants to follow up on comments received from Maspenock Woods residents at the previous meeting, and Ms. Kramer noted she feels those issues are not necessarily under the Planning Board’s purview, but she appreciates the developer’s efforts to address them. Mr. Gelcich stated this will then be considered an issue for the Building Dept., and after that it is a private matter. Mr. Atwell noted he attended the site walk and feels the proposed landscaping will address some of the concerns of the neighbors, and he has no other comments. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated she drove through the development and walked around on her own, and based on her observations and the proposed screening plan she is ok with the revisions to units 21-24 although it seems to be rather tight. She noted with respect to the proposed changes to unit 31 (5 West Elm St.) she is concerned about the location and the fact that as part of the special permit a waiver was granted to allow preservation of the existing house, even though personally, based on its condition she has no objection to replacing it. Mr. Paul stated he has no comments, and Mr. D’Urso stated he would like to get more information, Ms. Ritterbusch stated she does not think she has anything to add, and it was determined the house is less than 75 years old. In response to a question of Mr. Benson, it was clarified that the proposed square footage of units 21-24 will be with the average range for the development. In response to a question of Mr. Benson, the applicant stated the proposed square footage of units 21-24 will be within the average range for the development. Mr. Benson asked if there is any new information from the Conservation Commission and the Board of Health, and Mr. Barbieri stated that would only apply to unit 31 (5 West Elm St.). Mr. Barbieri stated they received comments from the Board of Health with respect to the existing septic system and they are meeting with the Conservation Commission tomorrow. Mr. Benson stated he understands the parcel at 5 West Elm St. was originally considered for an access road which was then moved around the corner. He noted he understands the structure is in very poor condition, but he is leery of making changes to the original decision. He asked about the possibility of demolishing the structure and start over in the same footprint, and Mr. Barbieri stated that could be done in theory but it would not make financial sense and it still would not look the same. He noted they are trying to work with the Conservation Commission to come up with a more natural look and provide additional protection of existing resources. The applicant noted they are proposing to replace the existing house with ​+​ 2,452 sf detached version of an Emily unit with some architectural changes as recommended by the Design Review Board and the driveway shifted to the other side. In response to a question of Mr. Trendel, Mr. Barbieri noted the unit has its own septic system, does not share the roadway and is separated from the rest of the development by wetlands and woods. Mr. Barbieri stated it meets the minimum setbacks for the underlying Residence B (RB) district and could technically stand on its own as a single family house but it is part of the special permit granted in 2006 and splitting it off would require a number of additional steps including an amendment to the special permit and approval from the condominium people. Mr. D’Urso stated there is a connecting walking path, and Mr. Barbieri stated he is not sure if that alone justifies paying the full condominium fees. Ms. Kramer stated she is struggling with this proposal, considering that the original decision allowed for a waiver to keep the house, and she is somewhat reluctant to rethink a previous Planning Board decision. She noted she is also reluctant to add to the waiver making the setback even less compliant, and as far as aesthetics are concerned she is not sure she likes a condominium unit there, which may have been the reason for the original Planning Board decision. Ms. Ritterbusch stated she is inclined to grant the waiver as it complies with underlying zoning and the existing structure is an eyesore and not historically significant. Mr. Benson noted he is not in favor of decreasing setbacks in an area so close to Lake Maspenock. Mr. Barbieri offered to provide a landscape plan to show there won’t be any impact on abutting property. Phil Paradis, BETA Group, Inc., the Board’s consultant engineer, stated the proposed plan is better from an environmental standpoint. Ms. Kramer reiterated her concerns about the proposed change noting she is not sure if the previous decision was based on environmental concerns. Mr. D’Urso stated he is leaning towards a “no” on this request considering the developer knew what he was buying and more information is needed from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Barbieri suggested holding off on making a decision pending a landscape plan and feedback from the Conservation Commission, and instead focus on the proposed changes to units 21-24. Mr. Paul confirmed that the proposed arborvitae are indeed deer-resistant, but asked the applicant to make sure that London Plane trees are appropriate here. The Board paused the discussion to open and continue the next scheduled public hearing. ●Public Hearing - Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement - 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Earth Removal Application - Eversource Energy Mr. Paul moved to open the public hearings to be continued at the conclusion of the discussion on Maspenock Woods, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the hearing, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. ●Continued Public Hearings - Maspenock Woods - Unit #31/5 West Elm St. (Amended Site Plan//Special Permit Applications) & Units 21, 22, 23, 24 (Amended Site Plan and Building Changes) - Maspenock Woods Realty Trust The Board continued the discussion of the proposed changes to units 21-24. It was noted the Board of Health had no issues with the proposal, although some of the criteria don’t apply. After further discussion, Mr. Paul moved to approve the changes as requested, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion. There was no public input, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. After further discussion, Mr. D’Urso moved to continue the public hearing for proposed changes with respect to 5 West Elm St. to September 9, 2019 and extend the decision deadline to September 16, 2019 upon mutual agreement, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The Board took a 5 minute break. Ms. Kramer asked if there is any more news about moving the meetings to the Library, and Mr. Gelcich he will have to follow up with the Town Manager but in the meantime it has come to his attention that there is a problem with the Town Hall elevator and that while it is being fixed all meetings have to be in the basement because of ADA requirements. ●Continued Public Hearings - Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement - 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Earth Removal Application - Eversource Energy Richard Paquette, Jr., TRC, Senior Project Manager, Sean Berthiaume, Eversource Energy, Project Engineer, and Matthew Waldrip, Eversource Energy, Senior Specialist, appeared before the Board. Mr. Paquette proceeded with a PowerPoint presentation on the applications before the Board. He noted the pipeline was installed in the early 1950’s in an existing easement, and the company will be increasing the diameter of the existing pipe from 6 to 12 inches in places where this has not already been done to fix an existing pressure drop in the system. He noted the line starts at the Wilson St. gate station in Hopkinton and ends at the Pond St. gate station in Ashland. He noted construction will be phased out over the course of 5 years at 4,000 ft./year during the summer construction season starting in 2020, starting in Hopkinton and ending in Ashland, with the new transfer line expected to be fully in service in 2024. He stated the project is strictly limited to pipe replacement, and no above ground facilities are proposed such as metering stations. He noted the project crosses Cross St. and Legacy Farms North in Hopkinton involving 10 properties within the existing easement in Hopkinton. Mr. Paquette noted the project is subject to review by multiple state and federal agencies and it is also being reviewed by the Energy Facilities Siting Board. He noted as part of the public outreach for the project they have had a number of open houses and meetings with town officials when the project was first kicked off in 2017, including a few open houses in Hopkinton. He continued with the slide presentation, offering additional commentary as deemed necessary. Mr. Paquette stated a scenic road application is necessary for temporary stone wall removal on Cross St., and it was noted this application is incomplete at this time pending an actual application and a valid abutters list. The applicant proceeded with the slide show and provided additional details as requested by the Board. It was noted they worked with the developer of Legacy Farms North and were able to replace a portion of the transfer line in that area already to avoid having to go back and open up the road again. He added they thoroughly checked those areas and they were found to be outside of the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Trendel asked about the overall impact on the wetlands, and Mr. Paquette noted it concerns a total of 5 resource areas and the Conservation Commission already reviewed the project and issued an Order of Conditions. Mr. Waldrip explained the delay in filing with the Planning Board for Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permits, stating they did not think the project would trip the thresholds. The Board paused the conversation to open the next scheduled public hearing. ●Continued Public Hearing - 9 B Street - Special Permit Application - Historic Structures - Newbridge Investments LLC Mr. D’Urso moved to open the public hearing on the application by Newbridge Investments LLC and consider the applicant’s request to withdraw the application without prejudice. Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Ritterbusch noted she heard from someone on the Historical Commission that the applicant felt the Board was not receptive to his proposal which is why he decided to withdraw their application, however that is not how she remembers the first hearing. She stated she is disappointed to hear about the request to withdraw because she was hoping they would preserve the structure, and Mr. Gelcich noted it is his understanding that they intend to construct something that looks historical. Ms. Kramer stated the issue of unmerging a merged lot was the complicating factor in this case. After further discussion Mr. D’Urso moved to allow the applicant to withdraw the special permit application without prejudice, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. ●Continued Public Hearings - Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement - 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Earth Removal Application - Eversource Energy Mr. Paquette continued with the PowerPoint presentation. He stated from a stormwater management standpoint they are not building structures or creating impervious surface and it essentially is an erosion sediment control project. He noted there is no need for post-construction measures or building detention basins and the goal is to return the area to pre-construction conditions following best management practices and setting up erosion controls. He noted they will need to follow the SWPPP and comply with DEP and Conservation Commission conditions imposed as part of the project. Mr. Paquette referred to comments received from BETA, Board of Health and Town Counsel, and stated they are still working on written responses to the Board but are ready for a quick overview. Ms. Kramer noted the Board at this point wants to hear from BETA and the Principal Planner and give the public an opportunity to weigh in. Mr. Paradis noted the project will not have a lot of permanent impact in terms of stormwater drainage but there will obviously be significant work in the easement itself and tree clearing to get to the site. He noted BETA has reviewed the Notice of Intent filed with the Conservation Commission, and the necessary procedures will be followed for crossing the wetlands including matting. He summarized BETA’s comments with respect to compliance with the stormwater standards. Mr. Paradis stated he essentially wants the Board to be on top of the SWPPP and be notified when the site is stabilized. He noted BETA has some suggestions for a few conditions to be included as part of the decision. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated the application refers to an unknown amount of soil to be transported off site, and she asked if there is any special consideration for soil removal/disturbance in places where pesticides were used. Mr. Paradis stated contaminated soil has to stay on site and he believes the plan shows an area for stockpiling, but the decision could include a condition to that effect. Mr. Waldrip described the process to be followed for taking materials off site. He noted the contractor will typically take the material to a secure laydown area, not necessarily in Hopkinton but in close proximity to the site. He noted the laydown yard would facilitate any required sampling, and what they will be sampling for will depend on the disposal facility, however, some places have specific requirements regarding herbicides and pesticides. Ms. Kramer noted they know the soils here have to be handled carefully and probably should not be taken away and carted back. Mr. Berthiaume noted they intend to keep the soil on site until the pipe is installed and the trench is backfilled and any excess soil would be removed at that point. He noted they usually don’t end up with a lot of excess soil and the goal is to keep as much of it on the site as possible. Mr. Gelcich noted Mr. Paradis has covered the stormwater aspect very well and he has no further comments on the earth removal application, but would like to refer to comments received from Town Counsel and the Board of Health regarding the abandonment of the existing pipe. He noted the Board of Health is concerned about the chemicals in the pipe and recommends flushing before abandonment and Town Counsel also wants the Planning Board to address that issue. Ms. Kramer passed the concerns on to the applicants to be addressed at the next meeting. Bob Foster, 85 Frankland Rd., noted the pipeline goes through the rear of his property probably for about 150 ft. or so. He noted the state required Eversource to show a possible alternative route, but that turned out having to tear up the street and he is opposed to that. Mr. Foster stated Eversource refers to this work as a “replacement” project, suggesting that the 6 in. pipe will be replaced with a 12 in. pipe, however it should be noted that the existing 6 in. will remain in place. He noted his concern is primarily going to be with the construction process. He noted when they originally installed the pipeline, they encountered a lot of very large boulders which were disposed of outside the easement. He noted he attended at least 2 of the public meetings and was assured that will not be happening this time, but based on the amount of excavation and site conditions he is sceptical because they will have to dispose of some very large rocks that cannot be used as backfill and have to go somewhere. He stated he is pretty sure there will be a lot of trucks going back and forth and it is a long way from Cross St., through the wetlands, to the easement. Mr. Foster noted it is not only a question about disposal of soil and rocks, but also how they will protect the existing pipeline because he does not want to see East Hopkinton disappear in a big cloud. He noted he has confidence in the ability of the Town’s Conservation Commission, DPW and other departments to supervise this project and make sure it is done safely, but it won’t be easy. Mr. Foster asked when the project is scheduled to start and how long it will last. He noted the Conservation Commission has issued an Order of Conditions and he has seen the plan, but he would like to know if there is any overlap with the Planning Board in terms of oversight and who will actually be tasked with supervision during construction. Mr. Gelcich stated Town Counsel suggested including a condition requiring the applicant to pay for the Board’s consultant engineer to monitor construction, overseeing the SWPPP, stormwater and earth removal issues. He stated he assumes the Conservation Commission’s consultant would oversee work in their jurisdiction. Ms. Kramer stated she believes the overall project will last from 2020 to 2024, with the Hopkinton portion to be done during 2020 and 2021. Mr. Foster stated he understands the company won’t be disposing of any soil within the easement, and the applicants nodded in agreement. Katie Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., referred to the letter from the Board of Health about flushing the abandoned pipe, and stated she would like the Planning Board to ask the applicant to identify the hazardous materials. She noted she understands it concerns hazardous materials routinely removed by the pipeline company as part of their normal operations, and it is only right that they are publicly listed. She noted she would be surprised if there is no such report which would be similar to what has been submitted to the Board for other applications. She stated care has to be taken to prevent the surrounding soils from being contaminated during the flushing process and it sounds like this should be done by a hazardous material reclamation company. She stated the Board should ask BETA why they did not bring this up. Ms. Towner stated the applicant did not seem to acknowledge that they should not be removing contaminated soil off site, and this issue should be further pursued. Mr. Gelcich stated he is not sure where it came from, but the Board of Health has a long spreadsheet of chemicals found in gas pipelines and it would be great if Eversource could confirm the list or provide their own. He noted the Board of Health explained the process of flushing the lines but it is beyond his scope. Ms. Kramer noted they need to find out how that process is managed and by whom. Sean Morrow, 88 Frankland Rd., asked about the distance between the new and old pipe, the type of construction vehicles to be used, and how they will get to the construction area. Mr. Morrow stated he is very concerned about potential contamination as a by-product of the project, but he does not know what types of pollutants could be involved or how it can be prevented, so he would rely on the Town to make sure the proper process if followed and appropriate safeguards are taken. Ms. Kramer stated that would be another question for the Board of Health. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to continue the public hearings to September 9, 2019 at 7:30 P.M. and extend the decision deadlines to September 16, 2019 by mutual agreement, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. Trendel moved to adjourn, Mr. D’Urso seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Adjourned: 10:00 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved ______________ Documents used at the Meeting: ●Agenda, Hopkinton Planning Board, Monday, July 22, 2019 ●Memorandum to Planning Board from John Gelcich, Principal Planner, re: Items on Planning Board Agenda, July 22, 2019 ●Landscape plan for Maspenock Woods in the vicinity of Units 21-24, dated 8 July 2019, prepared by Copley Wolff Design Group ●Electrical Site Plan - Frankland Road Solar, 71 Frankland Road, Hopkinton, MA 01748, prepared by Larson Engineering Inc. ●PowerPoint presentation - LNG Line Replacement Project (Eversource Energy); Letter to John Gelcich, Principal Planner, Hopkinton Planning Board, from Anthony Lupo, Staff Engineer, and Philip F. Paradis, Jr., PE, Associate, BETA Group, Inc., dated July 8, 2019 re: Hopkinton - Eversource Transfer Line Stormwater Peer Review ●Draft Invitation for Bids (for peer review services) ●Massachusetts Department of Transportation - Schedule of Public Information Meetings for the I-495/I-90 Interchange Improvements Projects, July 25 through August 1, 2019 ●Draft Minutes - Hopkinton Planning Board - June 24, 2019 ○ 9/3/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Whisper Way https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1643680333558398067&simpl=msg-f%3A16436803335…1/1 John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Whisper Way Phil Paradis <PParadis@beta-inc.com>Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:35 PM To: Dan Hazen <DHazen@gandhengineering.com>, John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: RON NATION <r.nation@comcast.net>, Don MacAdam <dmacadam@hopkintonma.gov> Dan, All good. As we discussed I am going to recommend a condition that final driveway layouts be reviewed and approved by the fire department prior to issuing a building permit. [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] Long Term Operation and Maintenance Plan The following shall serve as the (O&M) Plan required by Standard 9, as well as the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standard 4. A. Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance; Applicant: 20th Century Homes PO Box 152 Hopkinton, MA 01748 508-435-5901 B. Good housekeeping practices 1. Maintain site, landscaping and vegetation. 2. Sweep and pick up litter on pavements and grounds. 3. Deliveries shall be monitored by owners or representative to ensure that if any spillage occurs, it shall be contained and cleaned up immediately. 4. Maintain pavement and curbing in good repair. C. Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs 1. Plans: The stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan shall consist of all Plans, documents and all local state and federal approvals as required for the subject property. 2. Record Keeping: a. Maintain a log of all operation and maintenance activities for at least three years following construction, including inspections, repairs, replacement and disposal (for disposal, the log shall indicate the type of material and the disposal location); b. Make this log available to MassDEP and the Conservation Commission upon request; and c. Allow MassDEP and the Conservation Commission to inspect each BMP to determine whether the responsible party is implementing the Operation and Maintenance Plan. 3. Descriptions and Designs: The Best Management Practices (BMP) incorporated into the design include the following; a. Street Sweeping – Stipulated within the Construction Period Pollution Prevention Plan, the Long Term Pollution Prevention Plan, and the Operation and Maintenance Plan. As the amount of TSS removal is discretionary, no credit was taken within the calculations for this BMP. b. Deep sump catch basins with hoods installed to promote TSS Removal of solids and control floatable pollutants. This BMP has a design rate of 25% TSS Removal. c. Contech Water Quality M.H. with a design rate of 80% TSS Removal. d. Infiltration basin to provide the required recharge as well as provide an additional 80% TSS Removal. Refer to TSS Removal Worksheet in Standard 4 for treatment train. 4. BMP Maintenance: After construction it is the responsibility of the owner to perform maintenance. The cleaning of the components of the stormwater management system shall generally be as follows: a. Roadway: The owner shall keep the roadway swept with a mechanical sweeper or hand swept semi-annually at a minimum. b. Catch Basins and Oil/Grit Separator: Shall be cleaned by excavating, pumping or vacuuming. The sediment shall be disposed of off-site by the Owner. Inspect quarterly, remove silt when ¼ full. c. Contech treatment unit shall be inspected and cleaned in accordance with manufacturers recommendations. d. Infiltration Basins: Inspect twice per year and after every major event for the first few months. Mow basin at least twice per year. Clean sediment out of basin 2 times per year. 5. Access Provisions: All of the components of the storm water system will be accessible by the Owner D. Spill prevention and response plans 1. Inventory materials to be present on site during construction. 2. Train employees and subcontractors in prevention and clean up procedures. 3. All materials stored on site will be stored in their appropriate containers under a roof. 4. Follow manufacturers recommendation for disposal of used containers. 5. Store only enough product on site to do the job. 6. On site equipment, fueling and maintenance measures: a. Inspect on-site vehicles and equipment daily for leaks. b. Conduct all vehicle and equipment maintenance and refueling in one location, away from storm drains. c. Perform major repairs and maintenance off site. d. Use drip pans, drip cloths or absorbent pads when replacing spent fuels. e. Collect spent fuels and remove from site. 7. Clean up spills. a. Never hose down “dirty” pavement or impermeable surfaces where fluids have spilled. Use dry clean up methods (sawdust, cat litter and/or rags and absorbent pads). b. Sweep up dry materials immediately. Never wash them away or bury them. c. Clean up spills on dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of contaminated soil. d. Report significant spills to the Fire Department, Conservation Commission and Board of Health. E. Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas Use only organic fertilizer. Dispose of clippings outside of the 100 wetland foot buffer zone to the adjacent wetland and 125 foot vernal pool buffer. F. Requirements for storage and use of herbicides, and pesticides The application of herbicides or pesticides will be done by professional certified contractor. G. Provisions for operation and management of septic system Site to be serviced by septic systems. Septic systems shall be maintained in accordance with Hopkinton Board of Health and Massachusetts Title 5 regulations. H. Provisions for solid waste management 1. Waste Management Plan a. Dumpster for trash and bulk waste collection shall be stored inside or under a roof. b. Recycle materials whenever possible (paper, plaster cardboard, metal cans). Separate containers for material is recommended. c. Do not bury waste and debris on site. d. Certified haulers will be hired to remove the dumpster container waste as needed. Recycling products will also be removed off site weekly. I. Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas Snow storage is adequate around the site for large storm events. J. Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions No sand, salt, or chemicals for de-icing will be stored outside. K. Roadway vegetation maintenance Vegetation within the roadway right of way shall be mowed as needed to provide adequate sight distance for vehicles exiting the driveways within the subdivision. Landscaping within the right of way shall be low growing stock not to exceed 18-inches at maturity. Herbicides shall not be used for vegetation maintenance. L. Street sweeping schedules Sweeping, the act of cleaning pavement can be done by mechanical sweepers, vacuum sweeper or hand sweeper. The quantity of sand is a direct correlation with the treatment of ice and snow and the types of chemicals and spreaders that are being used on site to manage snow. If a liquid de-icer such as calcium chloride is used as a pretreatment to new events the amount of sand is minimized. Sweeping for this site should be done semi-annually at a minimum. Collecting the particulate before it enters the catch basins is cheaper and more environmentally friendly than in a catch basin mixing with oils and greases in the surface water runoff in catch basins. M. Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system The discharge into the stormwater system is not being violated, see attachment for illicit discharges compliance. N. Training the staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan The owner shall develop policies and procedures for containing the illicit spilling of oils, soda, beer, paper and litter. These wastes provide a degrading of the water quality. The placement of signs and trash barrels with lids around the site would contribute to a clean water quality site conditions. O. List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan: 20th Century Homes PO Box 152 Hopkinton, MA 01748 508-435-5901 This shall be the contact until such time as the project is sold or the roads are accepted by the Town. Owner Applicant Contractor TOWN OF HOPKINTON DEPARTMENT OF LAND USE, PLANNING AND PERMITTING TOWN HALL 18 MAIN STREET HOPKINTON, MA 01748 508-497-9745 www.hopkintonma.gov DRAFT ​Decision Subject Property:1 Whisper Way,3 Whisper Way,5 Whisper Way,129 Wood Street,0 Wood Street,0 Wood Street;Hopkinton Assessors Map R16 Block 55 Lot 0,Map R16 Block 56 Lot 0,R16 Block 26 Lot 0,Map U14 Block 27 Lot 0, Map U14, Block 28 Lot 0, Map U14 Block 28 Lot A. Project Name: “Whisper Ridge” Subdivision Subject:Application of 20​th Century Homes –Ron Nation for Amendment to Special Permit pursuant to Article XVII,Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development of the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw Applicant:20​th​ Century Homes – Ron Nation, P.O. Box 152, Hopkinton, MA Owners:Donna M.McIntyre,1 Whisper Way,Hopkinton,MA;Ravenwood LLC ADDRESS Date:September ​XX​, 2019 A.Procedural History 1.An Application for an amendment to the previously granted Special Permit was filed by the referenced Applicants on July 23,2019 for a special permit pursuant to Article XVII,Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development (the “OSLPD Bylaw”)of the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw,including approval of an amended Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development Concept Plan entitled “Whisper Way a Definitive Open Space Subdivision in Hopkinton Massachusetts”,prepared by Guerriere &Halnon,Inc.,dated May 24,2018, revised August 20,2019,showing 12 building lots on property located at 5 Whisper Way (Map R16 Block 26 Lot 0),129 Wood Street (Map U14 Block 27 Lot 0),0 Wood Street (Map U14 Block 28 Lot 0), and 0 Wood Street (Map U14 Block 28 Lot A). 2.An Application for the proposed amendment to the Special Permit was originally submitted on April 19,2019,with hearing dates on May 13,2019;June 10,2019;July 8,2019;and August 12,2019.An Application for the proposed amendment to the Subdivision Plan was submitted on May 24,2018,with hearing dates on August 27,2018;October 1,2018; October 29,2018;November 19,2018;May 13,2019;June 10,2019;July 8,2019,and August 12,2019.Dates that the application was on the agenda but was not discussed were December 3,2018;December 17,2018;January 14,2019;February 25,2019;and March 25, 2019. Both applications were withdrawn on August 12, 2019. 3.A public hearing on the Application was held on August 12, 2019 and September 9, 2019. 4.The Application was accompanied and augmented by plans entitled “Phasing Plan”prepared by Guerriere &Halnon,Inc.,dated August 20,2019 and “Conventional Subdivision Plan Whisper Ridge in Hopkinton,MA”,prepared by Guerriere &Halnon,Inc.,dated November 21, 2017; each of which depicts a conventional plan layout for the Subject Property. 5.The Concept Plan and other submission materials were reviewed by the Planning Board and were submitted for comment to Town departments and officials as required.Throughout its deliberations,the Planning Board has been mindful of the statements of the Applicants,their consultants and representatives,and the comments of the general public,all as made at the public hearing. 6.The Applicants have requested the following waivers from the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations: ●§5.4.1.N Definitive Plan Contents:Cross sections of each street at 50 foot intervals -Requesting to draw cross sections at station 0+50,1+00,1 +50 and station 5+60 only per review engineer recommendations. ●§5.4.1.R Definitive Plan Contents:Trees to be retained within the right of way to be shown,Due to the narrow width of the right of way and the required grading for the roadway, no trees will be able to be retained within the right of way. ●§5.4.1.Y Definitive Plan Contents:The applicant is requesting that street lights not be installed within the subdivision but to install driveway lights at the intersections of the driveway and road no higher than 8-feet and in compliance with dark sky lighting principles. ●§8.2.6.A Side slopes:Road side slopes 3:1 max.To bring the existing Whisper Way into compliance with the requirements for a maximum road slope of 10%,the side slope abutting the Town forest in certain sections will need to be reduced to a 2:1 slope and vegetated and stabilized. ●§8.2.7.A Disturbance to Natural Topography:Due to the wetlands at station 1+50, depths of fill are greater than 8 feet to facilitate the crossings. ●§8.2.7.B Disturbance to Natural Topography:No infrastructure construction on slopes greater than 25%.The road and lots have been configured to minimize impacts and construction in areas greater than 25%. 2 ●§8.4.10 Stormwater Basin Embankments:Side slopes of detention ponds 3:1.Due to the buffer constraints,an impervious core has been added to the pond to reduce the side slopes to 2: 1 while maintaining the top of berm width of 10 feet. ●§8.4.10 Stormwater Basin Embankments:Detention basin edges located 25 feet from houses,property lines and roadway.Due to environmental setbacks and existing property ownership the area for the basin is greatly reduced.   7.The Applicants have requested the following waivers from the provisions of the OSLPD Bylaw: ●§210-113.C.1 Buffer areas:Buffer of a minimum of 100 feet.Due to the configuration of the existing parcel,one point of the open space will be reduced to 25.00 feet.The open space in the remaining portion of the site will be a minimum of 100-feet and greater.This one area point abuts Town of Hopkinton property and will not impact homeowners. ●§210-111.Lot Frontage Depth:Due to the steep slopes and wetlands located on the site,common driveways will be utilized to minimize wetland impacts.This requires that the lots be configured in a way that does not lend itself to strict compliance with the Lot Frontage Depth.The Lot Frontage Depth can be waived as stated in §21 0-111A.to achieve the purpose of the Open Space and Landscape Preservation article. The waiver is requested for lots 5 and 6 only. B.Special Permit Criteria Section 210-115.A (3)of the OSLPD Bylaw states that the Special Permit shall be granted only if the Planning Board finds each of the following: (a)The development meets the purpose of an open space and landscape preservation development as described in § 210-106. (b)The development standards contained in § 210-112.A (1) through (4) have been met. (c)The common open space is designed in accordance with the standards set forth in § 210-113.B. (d)The common open space is designed in accordance with the standards set forth in § 210-113.C. (e)The parcel could be developed as a conventional subdivision under existing local,state and federal land use regulations. 3 (f)The open space and landscape preservation development provides for efficient use and delivery of municipal and other services and infrastructure. In accordance with Section 210-223 of the Zoning Bylaw,special permits,where granted,must be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Bylaw and may be subject to appropriate conditions. C.Discussion At the public hearing,the Applicants and their consultants described the proposed development. The design of the open space was discussed,including its proximity to existing open space owned by the Town.Discussion was held regarding improvements to and extension of the existing Whisper Way,which is a private way.Public comment was received at the public hearing,and questions and issues raised were discussed.The Board reviewed the materials submitted by the Applicants.It was noted that the OSLPD Bylaw requires a minimum of 50%of a site be set aside as permanent open space,and this plan would provide 51.1%.The Board discussed the waiver requests.Comments received from the Board’s engineering consultant were noted.The plan was revised throughout the public hearing process in response to the comments and questions raised by the Board and its consultants,and the public,all at the public hearings.The application was withdrawn and subsequently resubmitted in the same hearing,on August 12,2019,as repeated absences and an election had taken place during the public hearing process, renderings several Board members ineligible to vote on the application. D.General Findings of Fact 1.The Subject Property consists of 40.18 acres with frontage on Whisper Way,a private way, and Wood Street.The property contains four (4)single family homes,but is predominantly wooded.Three (3)of the single family homes would be razed;one (1)would remain on a subdivision lot. 2.The Subject Property is located in the Agricultural Zoning District,Residence B Zoning District, and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District. 3.The Concept Plan shows twelve (12)house lots and one (1)contiguous common open space parcels.The new street would be approximately 1,000 feet in length,and includes reconstruction of the existing Whisper Way. 4.The Concept Plan indicates that the definitive subdivision plan would create 20.99 acres of permanent open space in one parcel of land, 52.2% of the site. 5.The currently proposed development includes nine (9)new dwelling units,therefore the Flexible Community Development (FCD) Bylaw no longer applies to the project. E.Specific Findings 4 1.In view of the foregoing,the Planning Board voted on February 26,2018 to make the following findings relative to the OSLPD Bylaw: A.That the Development Standards contained in § 210-112.A have been met. The Applicants have provided information which demonstrates that the development will not cause unreasonable traffic congestion or unsafe conditions within and outside of the development and will provide for convenient and safe emergency vehicle access.The development will preserve the natural features of the property by adapting the location of structures and ways to the existing topography and the Concept Plan identifies and ensures the preservation of significant and special natural features,including wetlands and trail connections to existing public open space. B.That the Special Permit Criteria have been met, as set forth below; Criterion (a)​-​The development meets the purpose of an open space and landscape preservation development as described in § 210-106. The Concept Plan complies in all respects with the requirements of §210-106.The Concept Plan shows a subdivision which is an alternative to a conventional subdivision that provides for the preservation of permanent open space and development which is designed to accommodate the site’s physical characteristics.Approval of the subdivision will not make undevelopable land developable or permit an increase in the number of building lots that would otherwise be possible on a conventional plan,and provides for the preservation of important site features, such as stone walls and wetlands. Criterion (b)-​The development standards contained in §210-112.A (1)through (4)have been met. The Board found that the development standards were met, as noted in A. above. Criterion (c)​-The common open space is designed in accordance with the standards set forth in § 210-113.B. The open space area would be maintained in its natural state,with the exception of stormwater management components as conceptually noted on the Concept Plan.It is not anticipated that any of the open space will be covered by man-made impervious surfaces,and it is anticipated that the clearing for drainage improvements will not exceed 5%of common open space parcels. Criterion (d)-​The common open space is designed in accordance with the standards set forth in § 210-113.C. The common open space is designed in accordance with the standards as detailed in the Zoning Bylaw.A waiver had been previously granted for the 100-foot perimeter buffer to 5 adjacent property,however the revised plan as submitted and reviewed no longer requires that waiver and the 100-foot buffer will be provided as required. Criterion (e)-​The parcel could be developed as a conventional subdivision under existing local, state and federal land use regulations. The Applicants submitted a sketch of a conventional subdivision plan.The conventional plan could be approved by the Planning Board as it meets the applicable requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. Criterion (f)-​The open space and landscape preservation development provides for efficient use and delivery of municipal and other services and infrastructure. The proposed roadway will provide for the efficient use and delivery of services and infrastructure, as well as access for emergency services. C.That the use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Bylaw. The Concept Plan is consistent with the purpose of the Open Space and Landscape Preservation Development bylaw by preserving open space and natural features in perpetuity and by a design which accommodates the site’s physical characteristics. The following members of the Planning Board vote to make the findings stated above: Muriel Kramer Gary Trendel Francis D’Urso David Paul Amy Ritterbusch Deborah Fein-Brug Mary Larson Marlowe Robert Benson, Jr. No members of the Planning Board voted in opposition. F.Decision and Conditions In view of the foregoing findings,the Planning Board voted on ​September 9,2019 ​to grant the OSLPD Special Permit and to approve the Concept Plan entitled “Whisper Way a Definitive Open Space Subdivision in Hopkinton Massachusetts”,prepared by Guerriere &Halnon,Inc., dated May 24,2018,Revised August 20,2019.The Board’s approval is subject to the following terms and conditions: 1.The Applicant requests the following waivers from the provisions of the Subdivision Regulations and the OSLPD Bylaw: 6 ●§5.4.1.N Definitive Plan Contents:Cross sections of each street at 50 foot intervals -Requesting to draw cross sections at station 0+50,1+00,1 +50 and station 5+60 only per review engineer recommendations. ●§5.4.1.R Definitive Plan Contents:Trees to be retained within the right of way to be shown,Due to the narrow width of the right of way and the required grading for the roadway, no trees will be able to be retained within the right of way. ●§5.4.1.Y Definitive Plan Contents:The applicant is requesting that street lights not be installed within the subdivision but to install driveway lights at the intersections of the driveway and road no higher than 8-feet and in compliance with dark sky lighting principles. ●§8.2.6.A Side slopes:Road side slopes 3:1 max.To bring the existing Whisper Way into compliance with the requirements for a maximum road slope of 10%,the side slope abutting the Town forest in certain sections will need to be reduced to a 2:1 slope and vegetated and stabilized. ●§8.2.7.A Disturbance to Natural Topography:Due to the wetlands at station 1+50, depths of fill are greater than 8 feet to facilitate the crossings. ●§8.2.7.B Disturbance to Natural Topography:No infrastructure construction on slopes greater than 25%.The road and lots have been configured to minimize impacts and construction in areas greater than 25%. ●§8.4.10 Stormwater Basin Embankments:Side slopes of detention ponds 3:1.Due to the buffer constraints,an impervious core has been added to the pond to reduce the side slopes to 2: 1 while maintaining the top of berm width of 10 feet. ●§8.4.10 Stormwater Basin Embankments:Detention basin edges located 25 feet from houses,property lines and roadway.Due to environmental setbacks and existing property ownership the area for the basin is greatly reduced. ●§210-113.C.1 Buffer areas:Buffer of a minimum of 100 feet.Due to the configuration of the existing parcel,one point of the open space will be reduced to 25.00 feet.The open space in the remaining portion of the site will be a minimum of 100-feet and greater.This one area point abuts Town of Hopkinton property and will not impact homeowners. ●§210-111.Lot Frontage Depth:Due to the steep slopes and wetlands located on the site,common driveways will be utilized to minimize wetland impacts.This requires that the lots be configured in a way that does not lend itself to strict compliance with the Lot Frontage Depth.The Lot Frontage Depth can be waived as stated in §21 7 0-111A.to achieve the purpose of the Open Space and Landscape Preservation article. The waiver is requested for lots 5 and 6 only. The Board grants the requested waivers. 2.The definitive subdivision plan shall contain a maximum of 12 building lots. The number of lots is based on all of the information received during the public hearing process. 3.The definitive subdivision plan for the property shall show the open space parcel(s)to be created. The following materials shall be submitted with the definitive subdivision plan:1) identification of the entity which will own the open space;2)identification of the entity which will hold the conservation restriction (unless the land will be conveyed to the Town); and 3) a draft conservation restriction, if appropriate. 4.Due to the location and size of wetland resource areas and the proposed configuration of the road layout and lots,the Applicant is encouraged to file a Notice of Intent concurrently with the Conservation Commission when the definitive subdivision plan application is filed with the Planning Board.A concurrent process will allow for maximum coordination and collaboration on the final design of the subdivision. 5.Stormwater Management: In addition to the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations, Section 8.4,Stormwater Management,the definitive subdivision plan shall comply with the Massachusetts DEP Stormwater Regulations and the following conditions: (a)No additional stormwater runoff volume shall be deposited onto any abutting property, including land across Wood Street,without the written permission of the property owner. Such written permission shall be submitted with the definitive subdivision plan. If no written permission is provided,the plan shall not show runoff in excess of current volumes beyond the property line in that location. The Applicant shall submit all information necessary to document pre-and post-development stormwater runoff volumes in those areas. (b)The drainage system shown on the definitive plan shall be designed to ensure that the water quality of the stormwater runoff is not detrimental to the wetlands and receiving water bodies. (c)Stormwater management facilities,including detention,retention and infiltration basins, shall be designed to appear like natural landforms and shall be integrated with the topography of the area as much as possible. (d)The definitive subdivision plan submission shall include an Operation and Maintenance Plan for all elements of the stormwater management system. The plan should include identification of the entity responsible for maintenance and inspections,the frequency of inspection/cleaning of all elements,all special requirements (if any)associated with the facilities,and the recommended means of monitoring the performance of the proposed 8 facilities. Such plan shall be written in an organized manner with step by step instructions. 7.The definitive subdivision plan shall specifically call out the limit of clearing,both temporary (for construction)and permanent,required for all work in the subdivision,including homes, septic systems, driveways, lawns, roads, and stormwater management system components. 8.Proof of secured easements shall be provided by the Applicant with the definitive subdivision plan submittal for all work proposed for land under separate ownership and/or off-site. 9.No open space,no-cut easements or other restricted areas shown on the definitive subdivision plan shall be used for storage of construction vehicles,building materials,stockpiled loam or other material during construction. 10.The definitive subdivision plan shall be designed to be consistent with the approved Concept Plan. 11.The Applicant shall work with the Town to design a parking area for horse trailers within the open space area on the northeast corner of the property.The area shall be shown on the definitive subdivision plan. 12.Each building lot shall include an aesthetically pleasing low-level lighting system at the end of the driveway,adjacent to the roadway,to provide emergency services with assistance in identifying street numbers. 13.A minimum of four (4)dwelling units are to be outfitted with sprinkler systems for fire protection. These dwelling units must include those on​ Lots 1, 5, 11, and 12. 14.The covenants for the development shall include provisions compliant with dark sky principles such as lighting only being on when needed,only lighting the area that needs the lighting,having the lights be no brighter than necessary,minimizing blue light emissions, and having fully shielded (downward pointing)lighting,as specified by the International Dark-Sky Association. 15.The project shall maintain existing walking trails where possible,as well as make a concerted effort to establish new, publicly accessible trails within the on-site open space. 16.Final driveway layout and design shall be shown to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles as determined by the Fire Chief. The following members of the Planning Board vote to grant the Special Permits and approve the Concept Plan subject to the above-stated terms and conditions: 9 Muriel Kramer Gary Trendel Francis D’Urso David Paul Amy Ritterbusch Deborah Fein-Brug Mary Larson Marlowe Robert Benson, Jr. No members of the Planning Board voted in opposition to the grant of the Special Permit. . Muriel Kramer, Chair Appeals of this Decision,if any,shall be made pursuant to MGL c.40A s.17 and shall be filed within twenty (20)days after the date of filing of this Decision with the office of the Town Clerk. This Special Permit shall become void within two (2)years from the date of issue in accordance with Section 210-223 of the Zoning Bylaw.This Special Permit shall not be effective until filed with the Registry of Deeds by the Applicant. cc:Guerriere & Halnon, Inc. BETA Group, Inc. Conservation Commission Director of Municipal Inspections Fire Department Director of Public Works Board of Health 10 8/27/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - RE: 76 Main Street https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1642958257407505898&simpl=msg-f%3A16429582574…1/3 John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> RE: 76 Main Street 6 messages Kathi Sherry <kathi@onlinecommunications.net>Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:18 PM To: John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: "planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov" <planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov>, Paul Mastroianni <paulm@onlinecommunications.net> We are withdrawing our application for Site Plan Review for 76 Main Street at this time. Please remove the project from the September 9th Planning Board Meeting Agenda. Thank you – Kathi From: Kathi Sherry Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2019 10:30 AM To: John Gelcich (jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov) Cc: planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov; Paul Mastroianni (paulm@onlinecommunications.net) Subject: 76 Main Street - July 22nd Planning Board Meeting Hi John – We are requesting that our site plan application for the 76 Main Street project be put on hold as we pursue our legal options regarding the historic district designation. You can remove the project from the July 22nd Planning Board Meeting Agenda. Thank you – Kathi Kathi Sherry REC Hopkinton LLC E: kathi@onlinecommunications.net P: 508.435.4031 C: 617.962.6544 77 West Main Street | Suite 213 Hopkinton, MA 01748 8/27/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - RE: 76 Main Street https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1642958257407505898&simpl=msg-f%3A16429582574…2/3 John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:20 PM To: Kathi Sherry <kathi@onlinecommunications.net> Cc: "planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov" <planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov>, Paul Mastroianni <paulm@onlinecommunications.net> Hi Kathi - Just to confirm, you intend to withdraw - not continue - the application for 76 Main Street, correct? If you withdraw, the Board will vote to allow you to withdraw without prejudice and I will send a letter to the Town Clerk notifying him of this action. John John Gelcich, AICP Principal Planner Town of Hopkinton (508) 497-9745 jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov [Quoted text hidden] Kathi Sherry <kathi@onlinecommunications.net>Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:22 PM To: John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: "planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov" <planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov>, Paul Mastroianni <paulm@onlinecommunications.net> Yes we are withdrawing. Thank you – Kathi [Quoted text hidden] All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:22 PM To: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> FYI John Gelcich, AICP Principal Planner Town of Hopkinton (508) 497-9745 jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov 8/27/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - RE: 76 Main Street https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1642958257407505898&simpl=msg-f%3A16429582574…3/3 [Quoted text hidden] John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:25 PM To: Kathi Sherry <kathi@onlinecommunications.net> Cc: "planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov" <planningboardchair@hopkintonma.gov>, Paul Mastroianni <paulm@onlinecommunications.net> Thank you, Kathi. I'll keep it on the agenda for September 9th so the Board can vote to allow the withdrawal but you don't need to be there for that (if it takes place at a different time from the Chamberlain Whalen item). John John Gelcich, AICP Principal Planner Town of Hopkinton (508) 497-9745 jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov [Quoted text hidden] Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 3:54 PM To: John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> John, Ok, that will apply to both the site plan and FCD application. Cobi Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant DLUPP Town of Hopkinton Town Hall 18 Main St. Hopkinton, MA 01748 Phone 508-497-9745 [Quoted text hidden] J.D. MARQUEDANT & ASSOCIATES INC. Land Surveying 6 Walcott Street Hopkinton MA 01748 Phone: 508-435-4145 Fax: 508-435-0157 September 3, 2019 Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner Town of Hopkinton 18 Main Street Hopkinton MA 01748 Re: 97 South Street Hopkinton MA Dear Mr. Gelcich As a result of the review of the project, recently filed with the Town of Hopkinton Conservation Commission, revisions have been made to the project designs. I offer the following summary of the changes:  Based on a review of the site conditions wetlands flags #13, #14 and #18-#22 have been removed from the site plans. In addition, the existing detention basin was determined to be a regulated wetlands due to the presence of wetlands vegetation. The limit of this wetlands system was added to the design plans along with the altered wetlands delineation mentioned above and the associated buffer zones.  The light pole and wall mounted fixture designations have been added to the revised designs. In addition, a typical light pole detail has been added to the revised plans. This information had been previously submitted to your office for review, but has been added to the design plans for further clarity.  To aid in the review of the project designs by the Conservation Commission and its consultant Lucas Environmental LLC an additional sheet has been added to the site designs. A Project Management Plan highlighted as Supplemental Information outlines the limits of the various site altering activities at the project site. This plan is number as sheet 1.90 in the revised designs.  Protocols for short and long term inspection and maintenance activities at the site have been developed for the project. The inspection and maintenance activities include measures for review of elements of the storm water management system and the parking and driveway areas. Protocols outline the type of review, the frequency of said reviews and establish a system of record keeping and report generation for the site. A sketch plan highlighting snow storage locations has been included with these protocols at the request of the Conservation Commission. Copies of the revised designs and the Operations and Maintenance protocols are attached to this memo. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me with any concerns. Regards Joseph P Marquedant J.D. Marquedant & Associates Inc. Cc: Harold Nahigian STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN THE INNOVATION PARK Prepared for: Southfield Properties I LLC PO Box 701 Marlborough MA Date: August 26, 2019 Page - 2 - The proposed Hopkinton Innovation Park at 97 South Street Hopkinton MA drainage system has been designed to function properly provided that routine maintenance is performed. Maintenance of the parking areas, driveways, catch basins, manholes and detention basin are required to ensure that sedimentation and pollution is controlled and storm water retention capacity is sustained. To ensure the proper functioning of these facilities the following maintenance practices will be used: Owner and Party Responsible for Maintenance: Southfield Properties I LLC PO Box 701 Marlborough MA 01752 Phone: 508-481-9104 The owner shall develop a chart with a list of the following Best Management Practices (BMP’s) with the chart listing the maintenance requirement, frequency of maintenance and the date the maintenance was performed. PART 1 - INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE (DURING CONSTRUCTION) A. It shall be the responsibility of the General Contractor to ensure that the inspection, maintenance and protection of the stormwater managem ent system (defined in Section 2a below) is performed during the construction phase of the project and up to final stabilization of the site (refer to attached plan). B. The on-site stormwater management system shall be protected from the introduction of sediments and debris both during installation and throughout the duration of site construction in order to provide a fully functioning and long lasting system upon completion of construction. C. The following steps shall be implemented, at a minimum, to protect the stormwater management system during construction: 1. During construction of the upgrades to both the existing building and the parking areas and access driveways, any open excavation shall be protected from on-site sediments from storm runoff and snow melt by providing a line of erosion controls consisting of filter sock and silt fence. In the event that the excavation is compromised by sediment, the sediments shall be removed and the bottom of the excavation restored. Page - 3 - 2. An inspection of the existing stormwater management system shall be conducted by the General Contractor weekly as well as during and after all rainstorms until the completion of construction. Provide silt sacks as necessary for existing catch basins. In case of any noted introduction of sediments into the system, the General Contractor shall immediately remove said sediments and take any necessary steps to limit further introduction of sediments and notify the engineer of any problems involving storm water management systems. a) The proposed stormwater management system shall be defined as the roof leader, the existing closed drainage system of catch basins and drain manholes and the detention basin. b) A rainstorm shall be defined by all or one of the following thresholds: i. Any storm in which rain is predicted to last for twelve consecutive hours or more. ii. Any storm for which a flash flood watch or warning is issued. iii. Any single storm predicted to have a cumulative rainfall of greater than one-half inch. iv. Any storm not meeting the previous three thresholds but which would mark a third consecutive day of measurable rainfall. 3. The General Contractor shall also inspect the stormwater management systems at times of significant increase in surface water runoff due to rapid thawing when the risk of sediment migration is significant. 4. All collected/removed sediments shall be removed from the site and disposed of in a legal manner. PART 2 - INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE (POST-CONSTRUCTION) A. It shall be the responsibility of the Owner to ensure that the long-term inspection and maintenance of the stormwater management system on-site is performed. The on-site system shall include the following individual components of the stormwater management system: existing drainage system piping, existing catch basins, existing drain manholes, existing detention basin as shown on the approved plans. The Owner shall obtain the services of a qualified Contractor to perform the required inspections and maintenance of the individual components of the stormwater management system on-site, as listed above. All inspections and maintenance of the components of the stormwater management system. B. It shall be the responsibility of the Owner to maintain adequate records to demonstrate conformance with this inspection and maintenance plan. Page - 4 - C. The inspection and maintenance plan for the on-site stormwater management system (as listed in Section A above) shall be carried out by the current owner (project applicant) and by any and all future owners of the site in perpetuity. D. The inspection and maintenance plan shall be carried out as outlined below upon completion and final stabilization of the project site: E. During the first six months of operation of the facility the stormwater management system shall be inspected a minimum of once per month and after every rainstorm (defined in Part 1 above). As warranted by these inspections maintenance of the system shall be performed including, but not limited to the following: 1. Visual inspection of the existing catch basins, existing drain manholes, existing detention basin and existing parking areas to ensure that the system is not backed up and is emptying properly. 2. Visual inspection of the berms and curbs within the parking areas and access driveways to insure the proper flow of stormwater within the site. F. After the six month time period above has elapsed, thorough investigations shall be conducted two times a year. Maintenance requirements may be adjusted based upon the results obtained from the first year of operation. As warranted by these inspections maintenance of the system shall be performed including, but not limited to the following: 1. The existing detention basin requires an annual inspection for necessary maintenance (refer to attached plan). This consists of visually inspecting for the accumulation of sediment or floating debris; obstructions at the basin inlets and at the outlet control structure (existing). Remove sediments from these locations. Sediment, which is removed, shall be legally disposed of. The detention basin shall be monitored at several intervals during and after a small and large rainfall event to ensure the basins is functional. 2. The existing paved parking areas and access driveways will be swept after the end of snow plowing/collection period. Typically during the end of April to the beginning of May. The parking areas will be swept mechanically and all sediment collected will be disposed of off-site at an appropriate facility. 3. Catch basins will be inspected during this same time period. Accumulated sediment shall be removed from the catchbasins by means of vacuum truck or clam shell device if the sediment depth is greater than 6". 4. The detention basin requires an annual inspection for necessary main- tenance. This consists of visually inspecting the basin for the accumulation of sediment, obstructions to the inlets or outlets, erosion and tree and/or shrub growth. In addition, fallen trees and/or shrubs or tree branches will removed and disposed of as soon as is practicable to insure proper basin function. 5. Berms and curbs will be examined at the end of snow plowing/collection for Page - 5 - damage. All damaged concrete curbing will be replaced with like materials as soon as is practicable. All damaged asphalt berms will saw cut and removed and replaced with similar materials to match the existing surface as soon as is practicable but no later than August 1. Removed materials shall be disposed of at an appropriate location off site. 6. Twice yearly the project site will be inspected for invasive vegetation. Visual inspections of the project site by a qualified arborist or horticulturist will identify nuisance or invasive vegetation. Particular care will be given to the existing detention basin vegetation. The inspections will take place during the growing season during the late spring/early summer months of May or June and again in the mid to late autumn months of October or November. The vegetation will be removed and disposed of in a manner that does not allow for the spread of plant materials or seedlings at an appropriate location. Plant materials identified by the USDA, PLANTS website or similar glossary will be removed and disposed of. MAINTENANCE LOGS Maintain a log of all operation and maintenance activities including without limitation inspections, repairs, replacement and disposal (for disposal, the log shall indicate the type of material and disposal location). Inspection forms are provided below for the stormwater management system structures. A copy of the yearly maintenance logs shall be made accessible to the following agencies: Town of Hopkinton Conservation Commission 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 Department of Environmental Protection Central Regional Office 8 New Bond Street Worcester, MA 01608 Standard Guidelines  Pesticides and/or herbicides of any type shall not be used for the establishment or maintenance of turf grass associated with the project site and stormwater best management practice structures. Use of fertilizers shall be limited to no- or low- phosphorus, organic-based, slow release fertilizers. A maximum application rate of 2 pounds of Nitrogen (N) per 1000 square feet of turf per year.  Use of sodium chloride de-icing compounds shall be minimized throughout the project site wherever and whenever safety conditions allow. Use of sodium chloride substitutes, particularly those that do not include chloride, is encouraged. Page - 6 -  The owner shall submit annual reports to the Conservation Commission providing a summary of the maintenance of the stormwater management system conducted each year. Report shall be submitted on or before 1 November of each year. Said reports shall include receipts from engineering consultants and maintenance companies, etc. as evidence that the required maintenance work was conducted.  If, during the regular inspection of the infiltration basins providing groundwater recharge, there is an observable decrease in infiltration, the infiltration basins shall be refurbished to provide the level of groundwater recharge initially proposed in the stormwater management recharge calculations. Evidence of the problem and its repair shall be reported to the Commission.  All snow shall be plowed off the parking areas and driveways and will be stored in sites highlighted on project designs.  A plan showing the location of the systems and facilities including all structural and nonstructural BMP's is attached.  An estimated operations and maintenance budget. (Approximately $2,000 per year) Page - 7 - CATCH BASIN INSPECTION FORM Hopkinton Innovation Park 97 South Street Hopkinton, MA Owner: Property Manager: Inspected By: Date of Inspection: Catch Basins Inspected (describe location): Acceptable Needs Work Add notes below if structures need work: Date of cleaning: By Whom: Date of repair: By Whom: Below note any further actions that need to be taken as necessary: Page - 8 - DRAIN MANHOLE INSPECTION FORM Hopkinton Innovation Park 97 South Street Hopkinton, MA Owner: Property Manager: Inspected By: Date of Inspection: Grass Channel Inspected (describe location): Acceptable Needs Work Add notes below if structures need work: Date of cleaning: By Whom: Date of repair: By Whom: Below note any further actions that need to be taken as necessary: Page - 9 - DETENTION BASIN INSPECTION FORM Hopkinton Innovation Park 97 South Street Hopkinton, MA Owner: Property Manager: Inspected By: Date of Inspection: Basin Inspected (describe location): Acceptable Needs Work Add notes below if structure needs work: Date of cleaning: By Whom: Date of repair: By Whom: Below note any further actions that need to be taken as necessary: 7/26/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - 97, 99 South St. (Hopkinton Innovation Park) - Site Plan Review Application - Harold Nahigian, Southfield … https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1640067362456913512&simpl=msg-f%3A16400673624…1/1 John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> 97, 99 South St. (Hopkinton Innovation Park) - Site Plan Review Application - Harold Nahigian, Southfield Properties I, LLC John Westerling <jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov>Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 5:27 PM To: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: Mike Mansir <mikemansir@hopkintonma.gov>, Eric Carty <ericc@hopkintonma.gov>, Shaun McAuliffe <smcauliffe@hopkintonma.gov>, Don MacAdam <dmacadam@hopkintonma.gov>, Edward Lee <elee@hopkintonpd.org>, Steve Slaman <sslaman@hopkintonfd.org>, Chuck Kadlik <chuckk@hopkintonma.gov>, Judi Regan <judir@hopkintonma.gov>, Mary Carver <marycarver@hopkintonfd.org>, Anne-Marie Condon <acondon@hopkintonpd.org>, John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Cobi The DPW has no comment on the application. Thank you. Sincerely, John K. Westerling, MPA Director of Public Works, Hopkinton DPW Past-President, New England American Public Works Association 83 Wood Street PO Box 209 Hopkinton, MA 01748 Email: jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov Phone: 508-497-9740 Fax: 508-497-9761 [Quoted text hidden] IMG-8957.JPG 102K 9/5/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Maspenock Woods https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1643852044286628485&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-f%3A1643…1/3 John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Maspenock Woods Peter Barbieri <pbarbieri@fletchertilton.com>Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:04 PM To: John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Yes continue From: John Gelcich [mailto:jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 11:59 AM To: Peter Barbieri <pbarbieri@fletchertilton.com> Subject: Re: Maspenock Woods CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL Should we plan on at least continuing without discussion at the 9/9 meeting or do you think you will have a plan for withdrawal by Monday? John John Gelcich, AICP Principal Planner Town of Hopkinton (508) 497-9745 jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:48 AM Peter Barbieri <pbarbieri@fletchertilton.com> wrote: We met with the Con. Comm. and got some guidance. My client and the engineers were to me to come up with a new layout but I have not heard back. Let me check on it and even if it makes more sense to withdrawal from the planning board until we have a better sense of the Con. Comm. as I have no idea on the timing for that. From: John Gelcich [mailto:jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov] Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 11:45 AM To: Peter Barbieri <pbarbieri@fletchertilton.com> Subject: Maspenock Woods 9/5/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Maspenock Woods https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1643852044286628485&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-f%3A1643…2/3 CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL Peter - Is there going to be new information available to the Planning Board on the Maspenock Woods project? It is on the agenda for the upcoming meeting, but no new material has been received and the Board is looking to continue if there is no new information to deliberate. The point may be moot as new information was to be received by this past Tuesday, however, I wanted to touch base with you and see where you stand with the project. John John Gelcich, AICP Principal Planner Town of Hopkinton (508) 497-9745 jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. To the extent that this communication contains any federal tax-related advice, please be advised that such advice is not intended to be used, and may not be used, for the purpose of: (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. This e-mail message is generated from the law firm of Fletcher Tilton PC, and may contain information that is confidential and may be privileged as an attorney/client communication or as attorney work product. The information is intended to be disclosed solely to the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your computer system. 9/5/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Maspenock Woods https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1643852044286628485&dsqt=1&simpl=msg-f%3A1643…3/3 All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. BETA GROUP, INC. 315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062 P:781.255.1982 | F:781.255.1974 | W:www.BETA-Inc.com July 8, 2019 John Gelcich, Principal Planner Hopkinton Planning Board 18 Main Street, 3rd Floor Hopkinton, MA 01748 Re: Hopkinton – Eversource Transfer Line Stormwater Peer Review Dear Mr. Gelcich: BETA Group, Inc. reviewed submitted documents for the Stormwater Management Permit for the proposed Eversource Transfer Line Project Stormwater Management Permit on Eversource’s existing transfer line easement connecting the communities of Hopkinton and Ashland, MA. This letter is provided to outline BETA’s findings and recommendations. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA received the following documents: ·Approved Plans (25 sheets) entitled Eversource Energy Hopkinton – Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project Towns of Hopkinton & Ashland Middlesex County, Massachusetts dated March 18, 2019 prepared by Tri – Mont Engineering Co., Plymouth, MA. ·Application for Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit dated June 3, 2019 prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation, Scarborough, ME. Review by BETA will include the above items along with the following, as applicable: ·Town of Hopkinton Zoning Bylaws revised to May 6, 2014 ·Town of Hopkinton Massachusetts Zoning Map dated May 7, 2012 ·Water Resource Protection Overlay District (Map)Hopkinton, MA March 2011 ·Town of Hopkinton Chapter 172 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw ·Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Management Regulations, amended August 11, 2014 PROJECT OVERVIEW The 148,104± square foot project parcel is located on Eversource’s existing transfer line easement connecting Hopkinton and Ashland, Massachusetts. The project involves replacing approximately 3.71 miles (1.1 miles in Hopkinton) of buried 6 inch diameter steel natural gas pipe with 12 inch diameter steel natural gas pipe. The existing transfer line traverses woodlands, residential areas, and open water. The subject property is located within the Residential, Agriculture, and Professional Office Zoning Districts of Hopkinton, MA. Low Impact Development techniques, such as minimizing disturbances to existing trees and shrubs, were considered during the planning and design of this project The site is not located within a critical area (MassDEP Approved Zone II), however is located in multiple wetlands and Order of Conditions was issued by the Hopkinton Conservation Commission in April 2019. MassDEP Priority Resource Map indicates the project is not located with NHESP estimated habitats of rare wildlife or rare species. The site is not located within the 100 year FEMA mapped flood zone (Zone A). Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner July 8, 2019 Page 2 of 4 The project includes the excavation of a pipeline trench within the Company’s existing permanent easement. The Company’s easement will be restored to original grade and contours at the end of construction period. REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW The Applicant is not seeking any waivers from the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw. EARTH REMOVAL The project requires earth removal. In order to maintain existing elevations and limit impacts associated with grading, earth will need to be removed. The volume of earth removed approximately equals the volume of the new pipe and sand bedding. BETA calculates the minimum volume to be removed in accordance with the typical trench detail will be 1,300± cu. yds. Documentation indicates that access will be at locations where the easement crosses public streets. E1.Provide a plan outlining anticipated truck routes. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The proposed project includes the excavation of a pipeline trench within the company’s existing permanent easement located in the Town of Hopkinton. The project does not include additional impervious areas and documents indicate that all disturbed areas will be restored to the existing condition. If these two conditions are fulfilled there will be no permanent change in runoff and drainage patterns as a result of this project. MASSACHUSETTS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS: The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards (Stormwater Regulations (SWR) 7.0). The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation. No untreated stormwater (Standard Number 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth.The proposed project does not include new untreated outfall to wetland resource areas. The existing drainage patterns are maintained to the maximum extent practicable –complies with standard. Post-development peak discharge rates (Standard Number 2): Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates.The project does not propose an increase in impervious area and will not have any permanent impacts on the peak rate of runoff –complies with standard. Recharge to groundwater (Standard Number 3): Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable.Project documentation states “The proposed project does not design for any new impervious surfaces; therefore, no recharge is required.” 80% TSS Removal (Standard Number 4):For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids.Project documentation states “The proposed project does not design for any new impervious surfaces; therefore, no water quality treatment is required.” Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner July 8, 2019 Page 3 of 4 Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (Standard Number 5): Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs.The project is not considered a LUHPPL –standard not applicable. Critical Areas (Standard Number 6): Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas.The proposed project does not discharge stormwater to critical areas –standard not applicable. Redevelopment (Standard Number 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.The proposed project includes pipeline replacement. Provided all comments, herein, are addressed the project will meet this standard. Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls (Standard Number 8):Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.The project will disturb land in a long linear site crossing wetland resource areas private properties and roadways. The project includes detailed provisions to minimize temporary and along term impacts including significant erosion and sediment controls including: ·Stone trench pads ·Sediment control barriers ·Mulching ·Diversions ·Seeding and mulching ·Slope stabilization ·Trench breakers ·Dewatering ·Equipment refueling and spills ·Hazardous waste handling & disposal ·Dust control ·Remove erosion control devices SW1.BETA recommends a condition that requires the submission of the signed SWPPP prior to commencement of construction. SW2.BETA recommends a condition that requires the submission of SWPPP inspection reports to the Planning Board. SW3.Documents submitted indicate that the contactor is responsible to a.Provide restoration inspection reports to the Planning Board until site is stabilized. b.Notify the Planning Board when the site is stabilized. BETA recommends these be included as conditions. Operations/maintenance plan (Standard Number 9): A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed.Since no imperious areas are to be created and disturbed areas will be restored no stormwater management structures or best management practices are proposed. Therefore no long- term Operation and Maintenance Plan is provided or is necessary –standard not applicable. Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited.No Illicit Discharge Statement is provided. SW4.Provide a signed statement prior to construction. Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner July 8, 2019 Page 4 of 4 WETLANDS The project has received an Order of Condition (OOC) from the Hopkinton Conservation Commission with several conditions. If we can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact us at our office. Very truly yours, BETA Group, Inc. Anthony Lupo Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE Staff Engineer Associate O:\6600s\6675 - Hopkinton - Eversource Transfer Line\Engineering\Reports\Eversource Transfer Line - Stormwater Review 7-8-19.docx Town of Hopkinton Board of Health 18 Main St, Hopkinton, MA 01748 508497-9725 DATE: July 11,2019 TO: John Gelcich, Principal Planner, Land Use, Planning & Permit Department FROM: Shaun McAuliffe, Health Director RE: Storm Water & Earth Removal Plan Review Comments, Eversource Energy-Transfer Line Pipeline Easement Wilson Street, Hopkinton, MA The Health Director has reviewed the Permit Application. Based on a review of the plans presented, the Director provides the following comments and conditions: .. During permitted activity at the site, sanitary facilities must be provided, in adequate number and with proper frequency of service to address the sanitary and hygienic needs of the workforce. Permit for portable toilets may be obtained from the Health Department. .. Portable toilets must be serviced by a waste hauler permitted by the Town of Hopkinton. .. To remove the oil and/or hazardous waste and waste residues contained in the pipeline scheduled for abandonment, the pipeline must be pumped and flushed prior to abandonment. .. Soils and/or surface materials impacted during pumping and flushing must be securely stockpiled until they can be removed for permitted disposal. .. The wastes, waste liquids and contaminated soils generated during the pumpline abandonment must be contained, manifested and transported for offsite disposal in accordance with appropriate local, State and Federal regulations. .. To limit nuisance dust and noise, adequate control measures must be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the project. 1 Town of Hopkinton Board of Health 18 Main St, Hopkinton, MA 01748 508497-9725 • Work activities must be completed in accordance with the Town of Hopkinton Bylaw requirements for earth removal, use of construction equipment and construction waste or debris. Work activities must be completed in accordance with the permit documents provided for review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Stormwater and Earth Removal Plan. Copy: File Matthew Waldrip-Eversource Energy, 247 Station Drive, SE 2122, Westwood, MA 02090; Brendan Kearns, TRI-MONT Engineering Co., 265 Aviation Ave, Suite 212, South Burlington, VT 05403 2 6/17/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Re: Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashlan… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d686bf915&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar7073690194484208604%7Cmsg-f%3A1636595622198…1/2 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Re: Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project - Eversource Energy 1 message John Westerling <jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:46 AM To: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: Eric Carty <ericc@hopkintonma.gov>, Mike Mansir <mikemansir@hopkintonma.gov>, Judi Regan <judir@hopkintonma.gov>, John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>, Maria Pittman <mglynn@hopkintonma.gov> Cobi Will the Planning Board's engineer be reviewing this application? My only comment is for Eversource to alert the abutters of the proposed work. Thank you. Sincerely, John K. Westerling, MPA Director of Public Works, Hopkinton DPW Past-President, New England American Public Works Association 83 Wood Street PO Box 209 Hopkinton, MA 01748 Email: jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov Phone: 508-497-9740 Fax: 508-497-9761 On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 1:37 PM Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> wrote: John, Eric, Mike: Attached are copies of the combined tormwater management and earth removal permit applications submitted to the Planning board on 6/6/2019 by Eversource Energy in connection with the Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project. The Planning Board has scheduled the public hearings on July 22. Please submit any comments no later than July 16, 2019. Hard copies of the above have been left in the DPW mailbox at Town Hall. Please contact me if you have any questions. Cobi Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant DLUPP Town of Hopkinton Town Hall 18 Main St. Hopkinton, MA 01748 Phone 508-497-9745 6/17/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Re: Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashlan… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d686bf915&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar7073690194484208604%7Cmsg-f%3A1636595622198…2/2 All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. IMG-8957.JPG 102K 7/16/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashland Tr… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1639168025674138309&simpl=msg-f%3A16391680256…1/3 John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project - Eversource Energy Rebekah Lacey <rlacey@miyares-harrington.com>Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:14 PM To: John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>, Elaine Lazarus <elainel@hopkintonma.gov>, Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: John Westerling <jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov>, Norman Khumalo <nkhumalo@hopkintonma.gov>, Ray Miyares <ray@miyares-harrington.com> John G., Elaine, and Cobi: Below are Town Counsel’s comments on Eversource’s Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Earth Removal Permit and Stormwater Management Permit applications. For the convenience of folks copied, I’m attaching three documents referenced in the comments: the Earth Removal and SWM Permits for the liquefaction facility, and BETA’s peer review of the Transfer Line ER and SWMP applications. Earth Removal Permit Application 1. Section 96-5(3) of the Earth Removal Bylaw states that “[a]n applicant shall submit adequate evidence of ownership or authority to seek the permit.” No copy of, or Book and Page reference for, Eversource’s easement was provided in the application. An online article refers to an “order-of-taking document made by Northeastern Transmission Gas Co. in 1951,” but we could not locate the document via the Registry of Deeds online search function. Eversource should provide the relevant document(s) so that the extent of its property rights can be understood. 2. Eversource needs (but did not request) a waiver of the requirements at §96-3.E (depth to groundwater) and H (100-foot buffer strip). 3. Eversource states in Section 1.0 of the application narrative, “Although the exact volume of off-site soil disposal is not known at this time, it is anticipated to be below the 500 cubic yard threshold for Surplus Earth at §96-4(A.)(3) of the Town of Hopkinton’s Earth Removal Bylaw.” However, BETA’s peer review estimates that the project will generate approximately 1300 cubic yards of surplus earth. Eversource should provide more detailed information about the generation and disposal of surplus earth. 4. The Planning Board should consider whether “retiring” the existing pipe in place (as proposed in Eversource’s application) is acceptable. 5. Eversource provided minimal information about traffic control and roadway excavation safety measures, necessary for the Planning Board to evaluate the permit criterion at §96-6.B(2)(d) (“The earth removal activity will not result in traffic conditions on roads in the area of the earth removal activity which will cause unsafe and dangerous conditions.”). We recommend that the Planning Board require that Eversource submit a Traffic Management Plan and a Street Opening Plan and make approval of those plans by the relevant Town authorities and compliance with the approved plans a condition of the permit. 6. In addition to the above, we recommend that the Planning Board include all of the conditions included in the liquefaction facility ERP (modified as appropriate to this permit). Stormwater Management Permit Application 1. We agree with the recommendations made in BETA’s peer review. 2. We recommend that conditions similar to the ones included in the liquefaction facility SWMP be included in this permit. 3. We suggest that the Planning Board require Eversource to pay for a consultant to work on behalf of the Town performing site inspections and monitoring compliance with the permit, as provided for in Section 6.C.2 of the 7/16/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashland Tr… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1639168025674138309&simpl=msg-f%3A16391680256…2/3 Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations. Regards, Rebekah Rebekah Lacey   MiyaresHarrington - Local options at work   Miyares and Harrington LLP 40 Grove Street • Suite 190 Wellesley, MA 02482 Direct: 617.804.2425 | Main: 617.489.1600 rlacey@miyares-harrington.com www.miyares-harrington.com   This e-mail and any attachments may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any review, disclosure, distribution, use or duplication of this message and its attachments is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this e-mail in error. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Ray Miyares <ray@miyares-harrington.com> Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 at 1:39 PM To: Rebekah Lacey <rlacey@miyares-harrington.com> Subject: FW: Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project - Eversource Energy From: John Westerling <jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov> Date: Monday, June 17, 2019 at 11:03 AM To: "J. Miyares" <ray@miyares-harrington.com> Cc: Norman Khumalo <nkhumalo@hopkintonma.gov> Subject: Fwd: Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project - Eversource Energy Here you go! Welcome to “the Loop”! 7/16/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Planning Board - Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permit Applications - Hopkinton to Ashland Tr… https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1639168025674138309&simpl=msg-f%3A16391680256…3/3 [Quoted text hidden] -- Thank you. Sincerely, John K. Westerling Hopkinton's Director of Public Works 83 Wood Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 508-497-9740 [Quoted text hidden] 3 attachments Wilson St. 52 & 55 - Earth Removal Decision - LNG Liquefaction Facility - Signed.docx 72K Wilson St. 52 & 55 - Eversource Energy - SMP 2019-01 Signed[1].docx 76K BETA Group, HPB Stormwater Review, 07-08-19.pdf 93K Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project Town of Hopkinton Planning Board Hearing Stormwater Management & Earth Removal Permits Meeting Date –July 22, 2019 2 Project Location Hopkinton Project Location Project Overview PURPOSE AND NEED •The Project will continue the replacement of the section of 6-inch diameter steel natural gas pipe with 12-inch diameter steel natural gas pipe. •It will eliminate an existing pressure drop and improve performance, reliability and integrity of the Framingham and Ashland natural gas distribution systems. •The Project will also allow Eversource to meet anticipated, future load growth in the greater Framingham area. PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES •Replace approximately 3.71 miles of existing 6-inch-diameter pipeline with 12- inch-diameter pipeline within existing 20-30 foot wide permanent easement. •Replacement work will occur in five (5) sections over the course of five years. •The existing 6-inch diameter pipe in that section will then be taken out of service. •Maximum operating pressure = 450 pounds per square inch gauge (PSIG) •Maximum allowable operating pressure = 800 PSIG (will not change following construction) •Target In-Service Date = November 2024 (Full) Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project Project Facilities Project Scope in Hopkinton: •Replace approximately 1.2 miles of existing buried 6-inch diameter pipeline with 12-inch diameter pipeline in Hopkinton •Trench depth 4 feet, trench width 2.5 feet. •3 feet minimum backfill cover over pipe. •Work within existing pipeline easement (20 –30 feet wide). •No new above-ground facilities proposed. •2 roads crossed in Hopkinton –Legacy Farms Road North and Cross Street. (12-inch diameter pipe already installed across Legacy Farms Road North). •10 landowners crossed by the replacement pipeline easement in Hopkinton. Project Overview in Hopkinton Survey Status •Meetings with Town of Hopkinton Officials (July 2017 and Jan. 2018) –Town Manager, Engineering, DPW, Police, Conservation •Meetings with Town of Ashland Officials (July 2017 and Feb. 2018) •Notification to affected and abutting landowners (multiple) •Public informational meetings held in Hopkinton and Ashland (Feb. 2018 and March 2018) •Federal and State Agency meetings: –U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jan. 2018) –Department of Conservation and Recreation (Nov. 2017) –MEPA Office (Meeting with staff and Public Site Visit) –MassDEP Central and Northeast Region Offices (Meeting with staff and site visit) –Energy Facilities Siting Board (Site Visit, Public Hearing and Evidentiary Hearing) Community/Public Outreach Environmental Permits and Approvals Energy Facilities Siting Board•Approval of Petition/Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (Ongoing) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers•Section 404 Permit (issued) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency•NPDES Construction General Permit (to be filed prior to construction) U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service/ Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program•Consultation (complete) Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office•EENF and Single Environmental Impact Report (complete –Certificate issued) Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection •401 Water Quality Certification (review ongoing) Hopkinton Conservation Commission•Wetlands Protection Act -Order of Conditions (complete) Hopkinton Planning Board•Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permits •Scenic Road Permit Hopkinton Permits and Approvals Project Schedule Milestones Target Dates Receive All Final Agency Clearances/Permits Fall 2019 Construction Segment 1 (Hopkinton)May-Nov.2020 Construction Segment 2 (Hopkinton and Ashland)May-Nov.2021 Construction Segment 3 (Ashland)May-Nov.2022 Construction Segment 4 (Ashland)May-Nov.2023 Construction Segment 5 (Ashland) -In-Service (Full)May-Nov.2024 Project Schedule Project FacilitiesProject Construction in Hopkinton Le g a c y F a r m s R o a d - No r t h Project FacilitiesConstruction Workspace Configuration Project FacilitiesPipeline Trench Detail Project FacilitiesEasement and Workspace in Hopkinton Le g a c y F a r m s R o a d - No r t h Transfer Line Easement Project FacilitiesExisting Transfer Line Easement 11 Project FacilitiesExisting Transfer Line Easement 11 Project FacilitiesEversource Transfer Line Project FacilitiesExisting Transfer Line Easement 11 Project FacilitiesEversource Transfer Line Project FacilitiesExisting Transfer Line Easement 11 Project FacilitiesEversource Transfer Line Project FacilitiesExisting Transfer Line Easement 11 Project FacilitiesExisting Transfer Line Easement 11 Project FacilitiesEversource Transfer Line Project FacilitiesExisting Transfer Line Easement 11 Project FacilitiesEversource Transfer Line Project FacilitiesExisting Transfer Line Easement 11 Project FacilitiesErosion and Sediment BMPs Project FacilitiesSummary of Review Comments 1.Evidence of easement ownership 2.Waiver request for depth to groundwater and buffer strip 3.Volume of soil disposal 4.Pipe retirement 5.Traffic management plan and street opening plan 6.LNG facility conditions 7.Funding for consultant 8.Sanitary facilities 9.Pipe pump and flush 10.Construction dust and noise 11.Truck routes 12.Submit signed SWPPP and provide inspection reports August 30, 2019 John Gelcich, Principal Planner Hopkinton Planning Board Land Use, Planning and Permitting Department 18 Main Street, 3rd Floor Hopkinton, MA 01748 Subject: Eversource Energy - Hopkinton to Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project Response to Review Comments Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Applications Dear Mr. Gelcich: TRC, on behalf of Eversource Energy, has prepared the following responses to the review comments provided by the Town of Hopkinton Planning Board on the Application for a Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit. We are in receipt of comments from the Hopkinton Town Counsel, Hopkinton Board of Health, and Beta Group, Inc. The following sections identify each comment and our associated response. Hopkinton Town Counsel Comments The following section includes Eversource’s responses to the nine (9) Hopkinton Town Counsel comments provided in an email from John Gelcich, Principal Planner to Matthew Waldrip, July 16, 2019. Earth Removal Permit Application 1. Section 96-5(3) of the Earth Removal Bylaw states that “[a]n applicant shall submit adequate evidence of ownership or authority to seek the permit.” No copy of, or Book and Page reference for, Eversource’s easement was provided in the application. An online article refers to an “order- of-taking document made by Northeastern Transmission Gas Co. in 1951,” but we could not locate the document via the Registry of Deeds online search function. Eversource should provide the relevant document(s) so that the extent of its property rights can be understood. Response – The applicable deeds for the Eversource pipeline easement in the Town of Hopkinton have been provided in Attachment A. These include the following: • Book 7772/Page162, Northeastern Gas Transmission Company (7/13/1951); • Book 8040/Page 587, Northeastern Gas Transmission Company (3/28/1951); • Book 51234/Page 422, NSTAR Gas Company (5/27/2008); and • Book 64862/Page 172, NSTAR Gas Company (1/29/2015). Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner 2 Town of Hopkinton 2. Eversource needs (but did not request) a waiver of the requirements at §96-3.E (depth to groundwater) and H (100-foot buffer strip). Response – Eversource respectfully requests a waiver of the depth to groundwater requirement at §96-3.E and the 100-foot buffer strip requirement at §96-3.H. The basis for these waiver requests is provided below. Depth to Groundwater Section §96-3.E states that the depth of excavation for any earth removal operation shall not be closer than seven feet above the spring high-water table, as determined by observation of soil profiles or test wells. Given that the Project easement extends for approximately 1.2 miles through the Town of Hopkinton in areas of variable topography and substrate conditions, groundwater levels will fluctuate throughout the project area. Eversource requests a waiver because the proposed trench excavation will temporarily expose shallow water table and will be backfilled immediately following pipe installation with native soil material to restore the ground to pre-construction condition. Buffer Strip Section §96-3.H states a buffer strip of undisturbed land not less than 100 feet wide shall be maintained at all boundaries of the lot, including at all street lines, on which an earth removal operation occurs. In the event that an earth removal permit is issued for adjoining lots under the same ownership, the Board may waive the buffer strip requirement in such locations as it deems appropriate. The Project involves construction within an existing utility easement, which crosses multiple properties in Hopkinton over its 1.2-mile length. The Transfer Line easement is currently maintained in a non-forested condition to facilitate pipe inspections and other operation needs. Accordingly, buffer strips are not present within the easement at property boundaries and are not consistent with the continued operation and maintenance of the Transfer Line. That said, the Project will temporarily disturb soils and vegetation within the easement during construction, but once restoration is complete, vegetation will be allowed to regrow in the easement. 3. Eversource states in Section 1.0 of the application narrative, “Although the exact volume of off- site soil disposal is not known at this time, it is anticipated to be below the 500 cubic yard threshold for Surplus Earth at §96-4(A.)(3) of the Town of Hopkinton’s Earth Removal Bylaw.” However, BETA’s peer review estimates that the project will generate approximately 1300 cubic yards of surplus earth. Eversource should provide more detailed information about the generation and disposal of surplus earth. Response – Eversource conservatively estimates a volume of approximately 1,000 cubic yards of trench space that will be occupied by the proposed pipeline and sand bedding. However, in the Company’s experience, this volume is often offset to a degree by the removal of rocks, boulders and other materials deemed unsuitable for use as backfill in the trench. In the event excess soil is Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner 3 Town of Hopkinton generated during construction, it is Eversource’s plan to redistribute material near the trench area where it was excavated. Excess soils will not be spread in wetland resource areas or buffer zones. 4. The Planning Board should consider whether “retiring” the existing pipe in place (as proposed in Eversource’s application) is acceptable. Response - Eversource proposes to retire the existing 6-inch diameter pipeline in place to minimize impacts to property owners and environmental resources including wetlands, streams and wildlife habitat. If the existing pipe is removed instead of retired in place, a second separate mobilization will be required to excavate the 6-inch pipe once the proposed 12-inch diameter pipeline is installed and put into service. This would essentially double the impacts to the aforementioned resources and extend the duration of overall earth disturbance and construction activity. Within the context of the natural gas industry, it has been and continues to be standard practice to retire pipe in the ground when changing the size of or replacing an underground pipeline. Removing the existing pipe would result in additional environmental impacts as part of the removal process and increase the overall cost of the project to ratepayers, whereas the retired pipe does not have any adverse environmental impact. When the new Transfer Line is installed, the existing Transfer Line would be retired in place and only one pipeline would be left operational. For these reasons, Eversource does not plan on removing the existing pipe after the new pipeline is commissioned. To retire the existing 6-inch diameter pipeline, Eversource will first reduce the pressure in the existing 6-inch main down to approximately 60 psig, in order to reduce the amount of gas that must be released to the atmosphere. A section of the 6-inch main will then be isolated on each end through mechanical means and blown down to atmospheric pressure. The existing 6-inch pipe will then be purged to remove any remaining gas. Once a section of pipe has been removed of all gas, it will be cut and welded caps installed. Sections of the existing pipe that have been exposed to allow for the retirement process, will be backfilled to the same standard as if it were a new installation. Once a section of 6-inch steel pipe has been retired all gas will have been removed and the pipe will no longer be in service. 5. Eversource provided minimal information about traffic control and roadway excavation safety measures, necessary for the Planning Board to evaluate the permit criterion at §96-6.B(2)(d) (“The earth removal activity will not result in traffic conditions on roads in the area of the earth removal activity which will cause unsafe and dangerous conditions.”). We recommend that the Planning Board require that Eversource submit a Traffic Management Plan and a Street Opening Plan and make approval of those plans by the relevant Town authorities and compliance with the approved plans a condition of the permit. Response – Eversource will only need to construct across one road in Hopkinton (Cross Street). Eversource will coordinate with the Town on a traffic management plan and street opening permit prior to the start of construction. Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner 4 Town of Hopkinton 6. In addition to the above, we recommend that the Planning Board include all of the conditions included in the liquefaction facility ERP (modified as appropriate to this permit). Response – In general, the conditions included in the Hopkinton LNG facility Earth Removal Permit are acceptable to the Company. Stormwater Management Permit Application 1. We agree with the recommendations made in BETA’s peer review. Response – Eversource has addressed the Beta peer review comments in this letter. 2. We recommend that conditions similar to the ones included in the liquefaction facility SWMP be included in this permit. Response – In general, the conditions included in the Hopkinton LNG facility Stormwater Management Permit are acceptable to the Company. However, the Company identified some conditions in the LNG permit that don’t appear to be applicable to the proposed pipeline Project. These include Conditions 1.C, 1.E., 1.F., 2.J, 8, and 10. We assume those conditions will not be included in the permit issued for the Transfer Line Project. 3. We suggest that the Planning Board require Eversource to pay for a consultant to work on behalf of the Town performing site inspections and monitoring compliance with the permit, as provided for in Section 6.C.2 of the Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations. Response – SWPPP inspections will be performed by TRC during construction at the frequency required by the EPA Construction General Permit until the site has reached 70 percent stabilization. Following construction, as required by state and federal permits, inspections would be performed annually during the growing season and would continue until all disturbed areas within the easement that were temporarily impacted by the Project meet the state and federal restoration criteria. The Company agrees to fund an inspector/monitor for the Town but requests the parameters and scope of the work (e.g., frequency, estimated cost, deliverables, etc.) be established and agreed upon prior to the start of construction. Hopkinton Board of Health The following section includes Eversource’s responses to the Town of Hopkinton Board of Health review comments (Email from Shaun McAuliffe, Health Director to John Gelcich, Principal Planner, July 11, 2019). Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner 5 Town of Hopkinton 1. During permitted activity at the site, sanitary facilities must be provided, in adequate number and with proper frequency of service to address the sanitary and hygienic needs of the workforce. Permit for portable toilets may be obtained from the Health Department. Response – An adequate number of temporary sanitary facilities will be provided during construction by the contractor working for Eversource. 2. Portable toilets must be serviced by a waste hauler permitted by the Town of Hopkinton. Response – Eversource’s contractor will select a Hopkinton-approved waste hauler to service the temporary sanitary facilities. 3. To remove the oil and/or hazardous waste and waste residues contained in the pipeline scheduled for abandonment, the pipeline must be pumped and flushed prior to abandonment. Response – Eversource has not experienced oil and/or hazardous waste at the Wilson Street Gate Station (where the existing Transfer Line begins in Hopkinton), within the Transfer Line, or at the eastern end of the Transfer Line in Ashland. The Transfer Line is separated from the natural gas transmission system (at the Wilson Street Gate Station) by an existing oil and water filter separator. This separator is designed to remove any liquids and contaminants prior to entering the Transfer Line. However, no contaminants have been observed at the Wilson Street location. Based on this, it is the Company’s plan to cap the ends of the retired pipe sections and leave it in place without pumping/flushing the line. This is considered standard industry practice for natural gas distribution lines. If pumping and flushing the line was required, Eversource would need to truck water to the site, mobilize pumping equipment, and set up fractionation tanks to hold the discharge water for off- site disposal. These activities will generate additional noise, traffic and extend the duration of construction for what the Company believes to be an unnecessary effort. 4. Soils and/or surface materials Impacted during pumping and flushing must be securely stockpiled until they can be removed for permitted disposal Response – See Response to #3 above. 5. The wastes, waste liquids and contaminated soils generated during the pipeline abandonment must be contained, manifested and transported for offsite disposal in accordance with appropriate local, State and Federal regulations. Response – See Response to #3 above. 6. To limit nuisance dust and noise, adequate control measures must be implemented and maintained throughout the duration of the project. Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner 6 Town of Hopkinton Response – Dust Control Construction activities may result in the temporary generation of fugitive dust due to disturbance of the ground surface and other dust generating actions. Fugitive dust emissions from construction activities will depend on such factors as the properties of the emitting surfaces (i.e., moisture content and volume of spoils), meteorological variables, and construction practices employed. Although fugitive dust may be generated during construction activities, the relatively small disturbance area for this Project makes it unlikely that the migration of dust will cause off-site impacts. Furthermore, soil excavation does not typically generate dust due to the natural moisture content of subsurface soils. Nonetheless, the contractor will implement dust control measures as needed during active construction that will primarily consist of street sweeping and using wetting agents to control and suppress dust. Specific dust control measures expected to be incorporated into the Project include: • Mechanical street sweeping of construction areas and surrounding street and sidewalks as needed; • Removal of construction wastes in covered or enclosed trucks or trailers; • Wetting exposed soils and stockpiles as needed to prevent dust generation; and • Minimize duration of exposed soils. The Company will require its contractors to follow these procedures. Construction Noise Construction noise, while varying according to equipment in use, will be mitigated by the attenuating effect of distance and the intermittent and short-lived character of the noise. Further, the nature of construction of a pipeline dictates that construction activities and associated noise levels will move along the corridor and that no single location will be exposed to significant noise levels for an extended period. Some discrete activities (e.g., pressure testing, tie-ins, purge and packing the pipeline, etc.) may require 24-hour activity for limited periods of time (e.g., from one to three days). However, these 24-hour activities would require only a few overnight construction personnel and would not result in significant noise generation. Noise mitigation measures expected to be incorporated into the Project include: • Minimizing the amount of work conducted outside of typical construction hours; • Ensuring that appropriate mufflers are installed and maintained on construction equipment; Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner 7 Town of Hopkinton • Ensuring appropriate maintenance and lubrication of construction equipment to provide the quietest performance; • Requiring muffling enclosures on continuously-operating equipment such as air compressors and welding generators; • Turning off construction equipment when not in use and minimizing idling times; and • Mitigating the impact of noisy equipment on sensitive locations by using shielding or buffering distance to the extent practical. Blasting will not be conducted as part of this project due to the proximity to an active gas line, nor is construction expected to result in noticeable vibrations. Beta Group, Inc., July 8, 2019 Earth Removal 1. (E1.) Provide a plan outlining anticipated truck routes. Response – A figure has been prepared showing potential truck routes to access the Eversource pipeline easement during construction (see Attachment B). Stormwater Management 1. (SW1.) BETA recommends a condition that requires the submission of the signed SWPPP prior to commencement of construction. Response – Eversource will prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Construction General Permit. A copy of the signed SWPPP will be submitted to the Town of Hopkinton prior to the start of construction. 2. (SW2.) BETA recommends a condition that requires the submission of SWPPP inspection reports to the Planning Board. Response – Eversource will provide copies of the SWPPP inspection reports to the Planning Board as required by permits. 3. (SW3.) Documents submitted indicate that the contactor is responsible to: a) Provide restoration inspection reports to the Planning Board until site is stabilized. b) Notify the Planning Board when the site is stabilized. BETA recommends these be included as conditions. Mr. John Gelcich, Principal Planner 8 Town of Hopkinton Response – Eversource will provide a restoration inspection report to the Planning Board and notify the Planning Board when final stabilization has been achieved. 4. (SW4.) Provide a signed statement prior to construction. Response – Standard 10 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards defines illicit discharges to a stormwater management system as discharges that are not entirely comprised of stormwater. Eversource hereby states that the proposed Project will not generate an illicit discharge to a stormwater management system. A signed statement is provided in Attachment C. With the submission of this information we respectfully request your continued review of the permit applications. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (617)549-8506 or at cduncan@trccompanies.com. Best Regards, TRC Environmental Colin P. Duncan Program Manager cc: Matthew Waldrip, Eversource Sean Berthiaume, Eversource Rick Paquette, SWCA ATTACHMENT A Book 7772/Page 162 Northeastern Gas Transmission Company (7/13/1951) Book 8040/Page 587 Northeastern Gas Transmission Company (3/28/1951) Book 51234/Page 422 NSTAR Gas Company (5/27/2008) Book 64862/Page 172 NSTAR Gas Company (1/29/2015) ATTACHMENT B HOPKINT O N ASHLAN D C R O S S S T R E E T FRANKLAND ROAD L E G A C Y F A R M S N O R T H HOPKINTONTRANSFER LINE REPLACEMENT Data Source: ESRI, MASSGIS, EversourceBase Map: ESRI OpenStreetMap Pa t h : S : \ 1 - P R O J E C T S \ E V E R S O U R C E \ 2 7 4 3 5 3 _ H o p k i n t o n A s h l a n d _ G a s M a i n \ H o p k i n t o n _ T r u c k _ R o u t e s _ S t r e e t _ M a p 1 1 x 1 7 . m x d , D a t e S a v e d : 7 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 9 DATE: 7/29/2019 1 inch = 1,000 feet EVERSOURCE EASEMENT TOWN BOUNDARY POTENTIAL TRUCK ROUTE 1 POTENTIAL TRUCK ROUTE 2 POTENTIAL TRUCK ROUTES K 0 1,000 2,000 Feet PROJECT LOCATION ATTACHMENT C Illicit Discharge Statement To the best of my knowledge, the attached plans, computations and specifications meet the requirements of Standard 10 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook regarding illicit discharges to the stormwater management system and that no detectable illicit discharges exist on the site. Applicant Name Eversource Energy Address 247 Station Drive, SE 2122 Westwood, MA 02090 Telephone 781-441-8247 Contact Matthew Waldrip Senior Specialist – Environmental Licensing & Permitting Signature 8/19/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Eversource LNG Safety Concerns https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=47ea419b37&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1642320491182369274&simpl=msg-f%3A16423204911…1/1 John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Eversource LNG Safety Concerns Brendan Tedstone <btedstone@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 2:21 PM To: John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>, Stephen Slaman <sslaman@hopkintonfd.org> Hi John. I have a few concerns. Firstly, I think it’s paramount to have transparency between the facility and our emergency management team. Secondly, there needs to be a way of instant notification upon finding an issue to that emergency Management team to decide if it warrants notifying the public. The last “Thermal Anomaly” definitely caught my attention as a taxpayer and as a Selectman. Other than that, I would defer to Chief Slaman to air our concerns. He’s been around this facility for 40 years and is most capable as a leader, Chief, resident and taxpayer to ask the right questions. Sent from my wall mounted, rotary dialed telephone [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. TOWN OF HOPKINTON OFFICE OF THE PLANNING BOARD TOWN HALL 18 MAIN STREET HOPKINTON, MASS. 01748 (508) 497-9755 APPLICATION FOR A SCENIC ROAD PUBLIC HEARING Ch. 160 of the Bylaws of the Town of Hopkinton, Scenic Roads Date: _______________________________ Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________________________ Daytime Telephone: _________________________ Email: _____________________________ Address of Proposed Work: _______________________________________________________ Assessors Map: ________ Block: _________ Lot: _________ Describe the proposed work, including the species and diameter of each tree to be removed and linear feet of stone wall to be removed/altered:________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ Is a public hearing required under the provisions of the Public Shade Tree Law or Ch. 186, Trees? Yes: ________________ No: ___________________ If yes, has the Tree Warden been notified: ______________________________ Has a hearing date been set? _________________________ Submission Requirements Checklist: ______ Plan (See Ch. 160) ______ Certified list of abutters within 100 feet of the proposed work, from Assessors Office ______ $50.00 filing fee For Planning Department Use: Submission Date: _________________________ Date of Legal Ads: ____________________ Date of Public Hearing Deadline: _____________ Decision Due: ________________________ Public Hearing Date: _______________________ Decision Date: _______________________ 7-11-2019 Eversource Energy - Matthew Waldrip 247 Station Drive, SE 2122 Westwood, MA 02090 781-441-8247 matthew.waldrip@eversource.com existing Transfer Line easement in Hopkinton X X X X As part of the Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project, Eversource is proposing to use open trench construction methods to cross Cross Street. There is one stone wall that enters the existing pipeline easement from the south and extends approximately 5-feet into the 20-foot wide easement. This stone wall will be temporarily altered. Following the completion of construction, the stone wall will be returned to pre-consturction conditions. No trees will be removed as a result of the project crossing Cross Street. see attached list 7/30/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. - Eversource Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d686bf915&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-1411962933189050291%7Cmsg-f%3A164042095770…1/2 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. - Eversource Energy 1 message John Westerling <jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov>Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 3:07 PM To: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: Mike Mansir <mikemansir@hopkintonma.gov>, Eric Carty <ericc@hopkintonma.gov>, Maria Pittman <mglynn@hopkintonma.gov>, Chuck Kadlik <chuckk@hopkintonma.gov>, Judi Regan <judir@hopkintonma.gov>, John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov> Cobi The DPW has no comment on this application. Thank you. Sincerely, John K. Westerling, MPA Director of Public Works, Hopkinton DPW Past-President, New England American Public Works Association 83 Wood Street PO Box 209 Hopkinton, MA 01748 Email: jwesterling@hopkintonma.gov Phone: 508-497-9740 Fax: 508-497-9761 On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 2:54 PM Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> wrote: Attached please find a copy of the scenic road application submitted to the Planning Board on July 24, 2019 by Eversource Energy for the temporary removal of approximately 5 ft. of stone wall along Cross St., about 450 ft. north of the intersection with Frankland Rd., within the natural gas pipeline easement. The pipeline easement is 20 ft. wide in that location. The proposed work is related to the Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project. The public hearing will be held concurrently with the ongoing public hearings on the associated Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit applications continued to September 9, 2019. Please submit any comments/recommendations to the Planning Board at Town Hall or via email to John Gelcich or me no later than September 3. A hard copy of this application will be left in your mailbox at Town Hall. Please contact me if you have any questions. Cobi Wallace DLUPP Town of Hopkinton Town Hall 18 Main St. Hopkinton, MA 01748 7/30/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. - Eversource Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d686bf915&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-1411962933189050291%7Cmsg-f%3A164042095770…2/2 Phone 508-497-9745 All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. IMG-8957.JPG 102K 9/3/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Project - Eversource Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d686bf915&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-3709248113437167873%7Cmsg-f%3A164367138427…1/4 Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Project - Eversource Energy 1 message Rebekah Lacey <rlacey@miyares-harrington.com>Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 12:12 PM To: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov>, John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>, Elaine Lazarus <elainel@hopkintonma.gov> Cc: Ray Miyares <ray@miyares-harrington.com> Cobi, John, and Elaine: Our office has reviewed the Application for a Scenic Road Public Hearing submitted by Eversource Energy for work within the Scenic Road Layout of Cross Street as part of the Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Replacement Project. We submit the following comments for the Planning Board’s consideration: 1. The application does not clearly and specifically address the criteria set forth in Section 160-6 of the Hopkinton Scenic Roads Bylaw. Each of these criteria should be addressed individually. 2. The application states that only “saplings” are present within the right-of-way, but it appears from the photos and plan that that statement may not be accurate. The applicant should more specifically evaluate whether any trees greater than 3 inches in diameter at breast height (per §160-1 of the Bylaw) are present within the right-of-way within the Scenic Road Layout. If any are, the applicant should state whether any of these trees will be cut or removed. 3. Since the stone wall extends only 5 feet into the southern portion of the right-of-way (according to the application form), it is not clear why temporary removal of the wall is necessary, given that the new gas line will be installed in the northern portion of the right-of-way. 4. The applicant should provide a copy of the archeological survey report described on page 4 of the application narrative, as well as any responses received from tribal representatives and the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Please let me know if you have any questions. Regards, Rebekah Rebekah Lacey   9/3/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Project - Eversource Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d686bf915&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-3709248113437167873%7Cmsg-f%3A164367138427…2/4 MiyaresHarrington - Local options at work   Miyares and Harrington LLP 40 Grove Street • Suite 190 Wellesley, MA 02482 Direct: 617.804.2425 | Main: 617.489.1600 rlacey@miyares-harrington.com www.miyares-harrington.com   This e-mail and any attachments may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any review, disclosure, distribution, use or duplication of this message and its attachments is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this e-mail in error. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Date: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 9:44 AM To: Rebekah Lacey <rlacey@miyares-harrington.com> Cc: John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>, Elaine Lazarus <elainel@hopkintonma.gov> Subject: Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Project - Eversource Energy Hi Rebekah: This application has been scheduled for September 9, and comments and/or recommendations will be appreciated no later than September 3. Regards, Cobi Wallace Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant DLUPP Town of Hopkinton Town Hall 18 Main St. Hopkinton, MA 01748 9/3/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Project - Eversource Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d686bf915&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-3709248113437167873%7Cmsg-f%3A164367138427…3/4 Phone 508-497-9745 On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 9:26 AM Rebekah Lacey <rlacey@miyares-harrington.com> wrote: Thanks Cobi! What is the deadline for comments? Rebekah Rebekah Lacey   MiyaresHarrington - Local options at work   Miyares and Harrington LLP 40 Grove Street • Suite 190 Wellesley, MA 02482 Direct: 617.804.2425 | Main: 617.489.1600 rlacey@miyares-harrington.com www.miyares-harrington.com   This e-mail and any attachments may be privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please note that any review, disclosure, distribution, use or duplication of this message and its attachments is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately if you have received this e-mail in error. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Cobi Wallace <cobiw@hopkintonma.gov> Date: Monday, July 29, 2019 at 5:04 PM To: Rebekah Lacey <rlacey@miyares-harrington.com> Cc: John Gelcich <jgelcich@hopkintonma.gov>, Elaine Lazarus <elainel@hopkintonma.gov> Subject: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Project - Eversource Energy Hi Rebekah: Attached for your information is a copy (application and supporting documentation) of the scenic road application submitted to the Planning Board on July 24, 2019 by Eversource Energy, for temporary stone wall removal on Cross Street within the natural gas pipeline easement. The application was initially submitted on July 11 but was not complete until the actual application and valid abutters list was received on July 24. 9/3/2019 Town of Hopkinton, MA Mail - Re: Scenic Road Application - Cross St. Hopkinton-Ashland Transfer Line Project - Eversource Energy https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=6d686bf915&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a%3Ar-3709248113437167873%7Cmsg-f%3A164367138427…4/4 The public hearing has been scheduled for September 9, concurrently with the continued public hearings on the associated Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit applications. Please contact me if you have any questions. Regards, Cobi Wallace Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant DLUPP Town of Hopkinton Town Hall 18 Main St. Hopkinton, MA 01748 Phone 508-497-9745 All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. All email messages and attached content sent from and to this email account are public records unless qualified as an exemption under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Visit us online at www.hopkintonma.gov. McIntyre Engineering & Septic Services, Inc. 5 Whisper Way Hopkinton, MA 01748 508-497-2374 John Gelcich, Planner Hopkinton Planning Board Town Hall 18 Main Street Hopkinton, MA 01748 August 5, 2019 Subject: Scenic Road Permit Application – 223 Pond Street Dear Mr. Gelcich: Enclosed please find the following information for a scenic road application involving a temporary stone wall alteration at 223 Pond Street submitted on behalf of the owner. • Permit Application • Application fee ($50) • Plan of work (3 copies) • Certified list of abutters • Photographs of site The homeowners are in the process of replacing their failed cesspool with a Title 5 compliant septic system. The system has been designed and approved by the Board of Health. The majority of the construction access will be from an existing driveway opening off Pond Street. However, it is proposed to temporarily remove a portion of the stone wall along Pond Street to install the septic and pump tank. The tank locations are dictated by the house plumbing and are close to Pond Street. Access by the tank delivery truck to this area from the lot side is not possible due to steep topography. Removal of approximately 15 feet of wall would allow the delivery truck to back in from Pond Street and set the tanks. There are no trees within the right of way in this area. The plants along the wall would be saved for replanting. Two trees located on private property would be removed and replaced. These trees had been previously damaged by storms and were planned to be replaced by the homeowner. Upon completion of the septic system, the stone wall would be rebuilt in kind and the ground disturbed by the truck access would be replanted with the original plants. The septic construction is expected to take 2 to 3 weeks. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (508) 497-2374. Sincerely, Daniel McIntyre, P.E. cc: Christine & Andre Navez, homeowners Town of Hopkinton, MA August 4, 2019 MAP FOR REFERENCE ONLY NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT Town of Hopkinton, MA makes no claims and no warranties, expressed or implied, concerning the validity or accuracy of the GIS data presented on this map. 1" = 100 ft